Pope Benedict a Liberal?

You decide.  I read an article yesterday from Ars orandi and here is the gist of what was said...

Pope Benedict XVI is, at least from all appearances, a liberal when comes to religious tolerance. His words belie a man who believes that Catholicism is just one of many valid voices. He gives equal credit to Talmudic Judaism, Islam and Protestantism, even suggesting that Catholics need to turn to these various other religions to gain a full understanding of Divine Revelation. He uses the word "pluralism" with a positive connotation. Never once, to my knowledge, has the Holy Father ever called any politician, atheist or secularist to conversion while in Germany, this time or the two previous times. His words to the German government assure politicians that they can govern without regard to God or Christ the King. What a startling departure from everything the Church had always taught previous to the Second Vatican Council.

I think that this is the case with all churchmen today.  They have lost sight of religious tolerance and have espoused the flawed view of "ecumenism" of Vatican Council II.

The view of ecumenism isn't what is put forth there, but rather it is a threefold understanding of conversion.

1.  Catechesis  --  This applies particularly to Catholics and Protestants.  If we are to view Protestantism as a heresy, which it is, then it behooves Catholics to show the Protestant that his protest is in vain.  The truth doesn't lie in Calvin's view or in Wesley's view or in Hus' view or in Henry's view or in Luther's view.  It lies in the Catholic Church.  If the four marks of the Church are true, then it can be no other way.  The Church has to be one and universal.  It has to reach to all men, not just the "denomination" which calls itself Catholic.  Christ didn't found 33,000 churches, He founded 1.  The Church is the Catholic Church.  The second part of this is that Catholics must understand their faith.  They must know the basic tenants of what it means to be Catholic.  If this cannot be done, then the Church will fail.  Catechizing.  That is how we respond to Christians of other ecclesial communions and it is how we respond in house, with other Catholics.  We need to be unapologetic and we need to be clear.  The Church has given us 2011 years of understanding, we are not re-inventing the wheel.  We're talking about the very same things we've been talking about since the beginning.  The salvation of souls.

2. Ecumenism  --  This applies particularly to the Orthodox.  There was a schism.  There is a schism.  The Orthodox make up the second part of Christ's Church.  They have a special relationship with us.  While the excommunications have been lifted, the schism remains.  So, because the relationship is unique, there should be a unique way to respond.  This isn't about revealing the truth to them, they already have it.  It is about coming to a unified view of how to apply it.  They reject certain dogma. On this they should be catechized.  However, because they have other apostolic sees, we must approach them as being our separated brothers.  We must see them as being our compatriots.  We truly must view them as legitimate bishops who must find a way to accept the primacy which Christ called for when he handed the Keys to Peter.  That is ecumenism.

3. Evangelization  --  This applies particularly to the non-Christian.  We must take the Gospel to them.  We must convert them to being Catholic.  If the four marks are true, as with the Protestant, then the truth must lie in the Catholic Church.  This includes the Jews, Muslims and all forms of paganism.  The truth of the matter is that these souls are most at jeopardy, because they don't have the light of Christ.  They must accept the truth of being one, holy, catholic and apostolic.  Once this happens, then the evangelization is complete.

This idea of a "new evangelization" is flawed.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we need to bring souls to Christ.  For extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the truth, but getting humanity to understand it remains the challenge.

The Holy Father has embarked on the dangerous path of liberalism because this liberalism has been engrained into the psyche of those of his generation, and its cause is nothing other than the fear and guilt generated by the remembrance of World War II and the Holocaust. This has been the driving force of this pontificate, always lurking just under the surface of Benedict's dealings with non-Catholics and world governments. This is a particular flaw of the Holy Father's generation. Those of this generation have lived their entire lives under the shadow of, and guilt for, the atrocities of World War II. Never far from their decision making and ideological principles is the contemplation of Hitler, Nazism, the brutality of WWII and the images of the liberated concentration camps. It is particularly pronounced among Germans from this generation, and it tells us much about this pope's apparent inconsistencies and ideological liberalism when it comes to religious tolerance.

The pope has mentioned this remembrance more than once on this current trip to Germany. He was careful to keep the memory of WWII vivid in order to preface his vision. It is a premise that is never isolated from his thinking. It is attached like a cancer.

 This speaks directly to the idea of which I have been talking about liturgically for the last several weeks.  This idea of both/and....either/or.  This duplicity exists not only with regard to the liturgical action as presented in the Novus Ordo and the reform of the reform, but also in the view of relgious tolerance.  While we must tolerate the fact that other ecclesial communions, schism, and non-Christians exist, that does not mean that we don't try to convert and bring them to the truth.  The Church cannot stand on duplicitous ground.  Her foundation is twofold.  Tradition and Sacred Scripture; to assume any less is building a house on sandy ground.  I firmly believe that the parable of the sandy ground applies in this instance.  We must  make sure that our foundations are strong and that we must not waiver.  Liberalism, in any form is on sandy ground, because it's view is one of constant shifting.  To adapt to the times in which one lives is one thing, to constantly shift the foundation is another.  This speaks directly to what I've been saying:

While it is obvious that Benedict cherishes traditional Catholic expressions, they are to him just mere expressions among so many other expressions, some that are not even Catholic, that are not necessarily equal, but all valid, nonetheless. The difference is of aesthetic quality, like the difference between Bach and Schubert or Reni and Caravaggio. Personal preference ought to be respected, but it doesn't necessarily make any one artist or composer superior to the other. For Benedict the crucial factor for the church-esthete, which he seems to have appropriated to himself, is judging the appropriateness of the various expressions within given circumstances, much the same way someone chooses a venue for a concert. Sometimes traditionalism is more appropriate, and sometimes Communion and Liberation is more appropriate. There is more of phenomenology to Benedict's thinking than the moderate realism of St. Thomas Aquinas in his evaluation of the intrinsic value of Christian expression.

Perhaps on the surface this sounds perfectly acceptable. The problem, however, is that this is not the mission of the Church militant. The mission of the Church militant is that given to her by Christ: "Go and make disciples of the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. Whatever the Church does to alleviate human suffering, it ought to be done as a means to the end of proclaiming the Gospel and eliminating the greatest human suffering of all, which is the real possibility of damnation.

The Church has always been the primary catalyst of cultural change. She formed Western civilization. However, she did this not as the immediate purpose of her actions, but always as a happy byproduct of her primary activity, which is the salvation of souls. We see today the last remnants of a generation of churchmen who have this backward. Pope Benedict XVI has placed shaping culture and guiding the society as the primary activity of his pontificate and the modern Church, even to the point of espousing liberalism and indifference in order to convince non-Catholics of his humanitarian vision of worldly peace.

We, as the Church militant are duty bound to bring people to Christ.  It isn't just the job of the priest, bishop, and pope.  We must be willing to have the hard conversation and we must be willing to have the chutzpah to take a slap in the face when someone doesn't accept the Catholic view.  What we must not be willing to do is walk away when that slap in the face comes.

World peace is not what we've been called to.  We've been called, as Catholics to convert and save souls.  We don't do this by espousing an "ecumenical" view that all are equal and that there is room for everyone as they currently are.  No.  We must tolerate their lack of understanding, but we must always work to convert.  For if we truly love them, we will help them take the bushel basket off and see Christ's light for all that it is.

From First Things...

The previous post was inspired by this article from First Things:

A Modest Proposal

Sep 26, 2011

Leroy Huizenga

A major reason I became Catholic concerned the Church’s profound theology of the Eucharist, which I (as a New Testament scholar) found squared well with the biblical witness, once certain modern lenses fell like scales from my eyes. Paul speaks of our real participation in the body and blood of Christ as that which unites the Church (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) and soon thereafter remarks that some of the Corinthians have fallen infirm and dropped over dead because of their eating and drinking unworthily (11:27-32). One doesn’t die from mishandling symbols; one dies from mishandling that in which God is found, as readers familiar with Uzzah’s demise in 2 Samuel 6 and viewers of Raiders of the Lost Ark know.

In Luke 24:30-31 the risen Jesus vanishes from the two disciples’ sight precisely after Jesus “took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them” to signal that Christ is to be found thereafter in the Eucharist. John 6 presents a view of the Eucharist as high as any, bringing to mind the famous description of St. John’s disciple, St. Ignatius, of the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality.” Having done the exegetical work, I must confess with true charity I don’t understand how some can strain out the gnat of transubstantiation in John 6 (or some other high view, such as the Lutheran) having swallowed the camel of the Incarnation just a few chapters prior. Indeed, we Catholics believe so strongly in both the Incarnation and transubstantiation that we engage in the real “Worship of the Eucharist” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1378) as if it’s God, because we believe it is.

Or at least we’re supposed to. As a new Catholic, I’m beginning to wonder if the way we receive the Eucharist at Mass has served to undercut our particularly Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Lex orandi lex credendi, after all. Liturgy teaches. A Pew survey of religious knowledge taken last year discovered that 45 percent of Catholics “do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ.” (Of course, regular mass-goers seem better informed.) And of course the liturgy does more than just teach, as if religion were merely a matter of propositional doctrine; liturgy ought also inspire deep reverence for the Eucharist, because, again, we believe it’s God.

Now, in most Novus Ordo masses I’ve attended the congregation is dismissed pew-by-pew to approach the ministers of communion in a relatively fast-moving line. Some, like Archbishop Conti of Glasgow, think that this procession “beautifully expresses the way in which we are a people journeying towards the Lord.” Others, speaking sotto voce, mention they sense the semiotics of a drive-thru. My experience is that the process can feel rushed and perfunctory, even with a large team of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion on hand. I find I time my act of devotion (a quick genuflection or nod of the head, for instance, depending on how fast the line moves) with the prior communicant’s reception. Then I step forward to receive. Having received, I’m all too aware of the queue behind me and feel pressured to make way for others, and so I depart quickly, striding briskly back to my pew—while chewing Almighty God. I find the mechanics do not encourage reverence in me, at least.

How can I rightly savor the awesome moment of communion when I’m concentrating on making my way back to my seat? And so the past couple Sundays I’ve simply received the host, stepped a bit to the side of the priest while facing the altar and crucifix, and consumed it slowly and reverently. It’s a simple solution for me, and no one seems to mind; the front of the nave is so busy anyway it’s hard to be in anyone’s way, or to notice if someone was.

The few Tridentine masses I attended back in Chicagoland were different, of course. Communicants kneel at the rail while waiting for the priest to make his way to them, giving them time to prepare mentally and spiritually for what should be, theologically, the most profound moment they will experience until their death. Having received, time remains for them to consume the host slowly and reverently, and then depart for their pew at a reasonable pace.

Now many have neither ready access to nor desire for a Tridentine mass, and none of us should hold our breath waiting for altar rails and kneeling to return to celebrations of the Novus Ordo, Benedict’s desires for reverent liturgy notwithstanding. But drawing on (of all things) my experiences as a Lutheran preacher and liturgist serving a small German service in Naperville, Illinois, I would suggest a simple solution. When we celebrated Holy Communion, the congregants would come up in groups of about 15-20 and stand in the front of our small sanctuary. I as Pfarrer would shuffle from communicant to communicant and distribute the elements: Christi Leib, für dich gegeben / Christi Blut, für dich vergossen. Each communicant having received, they would commune together, and having communed, I would dismiss them: Gehet hin in Frieden. Then the next group would approach.

Something similar could easily be done in Catholic churches. People could line up across the front of the nave in front of the sanctuary, standing, if they wish, kneeling, if they choose, as is permitted. Then the priest—with a server holding a paten, perhaps—could shuffle from communicant to communicant and distribute the host. The Precious Blood could be brought as well by a second priest or some authorized minister of Holy Communion. Communicants would have time to prepare, receive and commune, no architectural renovations would be necessary, and fewer Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion would be involved. (As the 1997 document Ecclesia de mysterio points out in Article 8, such Ministers are supposed to be truly Extraordinary, not routine, lest confusion regarding the nature of the priesthood and the sacrament result.)

Of course, even the slightest changes in How Things Are Done can arouse fear and loathing in the faithful, and thus any changes would need to be implemented slowly with due explanation and preparation; that said, perhaps the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal this fall provides a ready window.

Given what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, reverence matters, for God’s sake and our own. In any event the Catechism makes clear that the liturgy is “the privileged place for catechizing the People of God” (1074). Indeed, Pope Benedict emphasized in Sacramentum Caritatis 64 that “the best catechesis on the Eucharist is the Eucharist itself, celebrated well.” It’s God, after all.

Here are my thoughts on the article:

I'm going to disagree a little with the author.  I think that we should hold our breath waiting for the return of the altar rails and proper reception of Holy Communion.  That is our tradition and that is what we should be promoting, whether it be from the OF or the EF.

If the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, then why should we not show that Sacrament the most profound reverence that can be had?  Kneeling, from a Catholic perspective, does just that.  Anything less is to lessen the amount of reverence we show toward the Blessed Sacrament.  Reverence, in this instance is not a subjective, interior mode, but rather it is a public and objective witness to the reality of what has just taken place and what the priest confected for us.

If reception of Holy Communion is the culmination of our worship, it would only make sense to assume the same posture of adoration and reverence when receiving Holy Communion as it is when it is confected.  To do any less is to create a false dichotomy.

Finally, I must take issue with the notion of patterning after the "Lutheran" practice of reception.  Lutherans altered the way they received the species, because they abandoned the way they worship.  They don't believe the same things a Catholic believes with regard to the Blessed Sacrament.  Insofar as they don't, they do not revere and adore the species, they merely respect it as being in the moment.  Therefore, their view of reception is not as complete or promising.  That being said, to adopt their mode of reception is counter productive for Catholics, while practical, it is not theologically sound nor is it theologically desirable.

If the Eucharist is the Source and Summit...

The most reverent Masses I’ve ever assisted at in both the OF and the EF, have been Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s. He truly understands the lex orandi, lex credendi.

I want to intimate two quick stories…first, the very first EF Mass I ever assisted at was with Fr. Z. I really had no idea at that point what the EF was (indult), and he and Monsignor Schuler were very patient in explaining what the true understanding of continuity was. This was in 1996!! He then taught me how to serve a low Mass and from there, the rest is history. I now assist 99% at the EF and it is all thanks to Fr. Z and to Monsignor Schuler.

The second story supports the first. Since I first met Fr. Z and Monsignor Schuler, there have been two things emphasized. Participatio actuosa and authentic continuity (at that point it was strictly couched in the terms of authentic interpretation of Vatican Council II) . Bottom line, if the Novus Ordo was to ever be authentic, then it must be celebrated as the Council Fathers wanted, not any other way….so Monsignor never changed that. His vision was that the OF was an organic growth from the Church. The way the Mass was/is celebrated at St. Agnes speaks to this in a way that is wholly and completely unique. IT IS THE WAY THAT FR. Z SPEAKS ABOUT CONTINUITY. It wasn’t until Benedict started talking about it in earnest that the reality hit me…Monsignor Schuler and Fr. Z were on to something…the rest of the Church needs to listen. It’s no joke. A few key points:

1. Mass ad orientem all the time, on the same altar from 1888.
2. High Mass in Latin, low Mass in the vernacular. (Very rarely, if ever was there a High Mass in the vernacular.) Readings only in the vernacular.
3. Solemn Masses as well as Missa Cantata. Using either two deacons or a deacon and acolyte.
4. Gregorian Chant propers and either Orchestral/polyphonic ordinaries (except penitential times, chant). Hymns only for low Mass.
5. Use of all of the ceremonies for Solemn Mass. This necessitated 13 servers for High Mass.
6. Communion under one species and received at the rail and in the traditional manner.

There is only one place that I know of in all of Christendom that has remained 100% faithful to the true vision of Vatican Council II. And I learned this from two men. Father Zuhlsdorf is one of them.
My point in those stories…The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of our Faith. The Mass is the vehicle. When a priest authentically understands that, the Mass will be beautiful and reverent and right. Cadence, posture, devotion and familiarity. They all breed compliance. And that breeds love. And that….well, that breeds the best Mass I’ve ever assisted. It just happens that it was Fr. Z singing High Mass to St. Cecilia’s Mass in 1996, with Monsignor Schuler conducting.

It changed my life. It put me on a path that is not popular, but it is right. I will fight until my dying breath to see it to it’s logical end…either the authentic implementation of the OF or it’s suppression. The abuse has to be corrected one way or another. The perfect model is the Bandas/Schuler model, as espoused by Fr. Z and a few others. If this cannot be realized, then the EF should gloriously reign as the OF until such time as the Novus Ordo can be authentically implemented, according to the Council Fathers.

This has never been an issue of validity, only licitness.

Bishop Cupich and 40 Days for Life...

Bishop Blase Cupich, Bishop of Spokane (formerly a priest of the Archdiocese of Omaha) has made a clarifying statement with regard to 40 Days for Life going on in Spokane.  He has called for prudence from his priests.

Text is here.

LifeSiteNews, who I normally think does wonderful work in the pro-life movement has caught wind of this and is lambasting His Excellency for asking his priests to refrain from this particular protest, vigil, whatever you choose to call it.  His reasoning is that it is becoming too political and that his priests should rather teach about it than be protesting.  That is His Excellency's prerogative.  I have no issue with it.  To that, the combox has been  very active in scrutiny of the good Bishop.

Let me be clear about one thing, this is not really a problem about the pro-life movement, but rather this is a problem of obedience and the fact that people don't want their priests to be obedient unless it suits them to be so.  I daresay that the people in these comboxes refuse to see that the Bishop is not asking for his priests to stop being pro life, but rather he wants his priests to support the faithful prayerfully and by using the moment to teach.

Some of my responses follow;

Praise God for Bishop Cupich.  He recognizes that the role of the priest is bigger than one issue.  His pastors and curates must work for the whole of their parishes, not just one issue.
While they should be standing up and talking about the horrors of abortion, they too should be talking about the horrors of liturgical abuse.  They should be talking about bringing people back to the Church.  They should be talking about the Sacraments.  They should be talking about saving souls.
What priests should not be doing is getting caught up in the political activities which surround the pro-life movement.  They have no place there.
Again, I applaud Bishop Cupich for holding his clergy accountable.  I applaud Bishop Cupich for affirming his pro-life position.  I applaud Bishop Cupich for doing what is necessary.  He is the Ordinary and his priests owe him Holy Obedience.  We should let his priests be obedient and not call for them to go against the just wishes of their Ordinary.

...But what I’m saying is not spin.  And it makes great sense to what is at hand.  I don’t know what you said prior, because I cannot see it.  You don’t need to be graphic with me on what goes on inside an abortion mill.  I’m well aware.  I’ve mentioned on the other thread that I have a pretty invested interest in the pro-life movement.  I daresay that I’ve done more than most and put my freedom and safety on the line, by being a sidewalk counselor.  I’ve given away hundreds of rosaries to those walking into abortion mills and I’ve spent thousands of hours on my knees in front of said mills.  Let’s do get something straight.  I have no problem doing what you ask.  I applaud anyone who does.  Bishop Cupich has asked that his priests not do that.  I respect that.  He is the Ordinary and his priests need to be obedient.  Yes, it is supportive, but it is also political.

The reason His Excellency has called for what he has called for is because 40 Days for Life is not a Catholic movement.  It is often politicized and I can tell you from being involved in it that it is political.  It is a protest, to cut to the chase.  It is a prayerful protest, but a protest nonetheless.
Because it not a Catholic movement, His Excellency is asking for his priests to focus on those things which are and in a Catholic way.  For a priest, that is to teach, not protest.  He may pray and Bishop Cupich will not ask a priest to oppose his well formed conscience on that matter, but he’s asking that his priests to be prudent.  There is nothing wrong with that.
Bishop Cupich is being demonized because he is being consistent that his priests should refrain from political activities.  You may disagree with him over the politics of 40 Days for Life.  Fine.  His judgment though, must be respected and adhered by his priests.  You might not like it, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong.  Mainly, because it isn’t, regarding the non-Catholic origin and acceptance of 40 Days for Life.
Again, this goes to my point over two threads that a Catholic must be pro-life, but a Catholic doesn’t have to be a militant pro-lifer….and a priest shouldn’t be one.  He has a teacher’s role, not a soldier’s.

...the fact remains that the Ordinary is not supportive of 40 Days for Life, because it is not Catholic.  That is his prerogative.  He feels that it is too political and feels that his priests and the diocese may be harmed by participation.  Again, his prerogative.  He’s not (as I’ve said before) expecting his priests to stop being pro-life.  He’s not expecting them to stop teaching, actually he is calling for that.  He’s just asking them to refrain from participating in this particular event.  Again, his prerogative. No, he is not exclusively forbidding them from participation, but his tone to them is clear.  Please don’t.  It is much like a doctor asking a patient who has high blood pressure to refrain from putting salt on french fries.  He won’t forbid it, but he knows the consequences could be harmful.  His Excellency is asking them to make a prudential judgment, while realizing that they can move as their conscience dictates.  Holy Obedience to their Ordinary should play a part in this and that is the point I’ve been making all along…it would be prudent for a priest of the diocese of Spokane to listen to his Ordinary.
Preach about it.  Support it, but if the Ordinary asks the priests not to participate in it, without forbidding it, well….
As for Catholics participating in non-Catholic things…I am of the opinion that prudence should rule the day too.  If Catholics are trying to regain a Catholic identity, then perhaps it is best for Catholics to do those things which are Catholic, FIRST!  So, if there are Catholic pro-life rallies and stances, then he should do that before something secular or “inter-religious.”  I know most here will not agree with that, but c’est la vie.  Call me traddy, I don’t really care.
Bottom line, DoctorMD; His Excellency hasn’t forbidden it, but he shouldn’t have to.  His priests should follow his lead.  He is the shepherd, they lead his flock.  Common sense.
This has never been an issue about pro-life, but rather an issue of Holy Obedience…sadly too many here have advocated disobedience, so that it can suit their own personal stance on morality.  The Catholic Church is bigger than any one position and while it certainly encompasses the pro-life issue, that is not all the priest must be about.  There is so much more…of which I have already opined enough.

This isn't an issue about being pro-life.  This is an issue that the faithful are calling for their priests to be disobedient.  I am calling for priests to remember that they owe their allegiance to their Ordinary.  They know this and so should we.  The promise of obedience is made to the Ordaining bishop and his successors.  The laity should support that, not tear it down, so they can have a collar at their latest protest.

Our Lady of Willesden

A wonderful little "ferverino" on Our Lady of Willesden.  Take a watch.

Reform of the Reform...An Excercise...

So, there has been a lot of bickering across the interwebz lately about the reform of the reform.  I've been part of some of it, so I've decided that perhaps a scholarly look at what could be reformed is in order.

So, let's see...this will be a summary post, but I would like to expound upon it and see if there cannot be something done about a hypothetical reform.  I will speak to language, architecture and the Liturgy of the Word in this post.

I will add this caveat.  This is not an archeological excercise.  I am not interested in taking the Mass back 1000 or 1500 years.  That is not the point.  The point is that if the idea of a true reform of the Novus Ordo is to take place, what can be done immediately.  Let's start with the language.  The vernacular language of the Latin Church is Latin.  Therefore, to ensure uniformity and universality at Holy Mass and foster a mutual understanding of the Mass across cultural lines, the majority of the Mass will be in Latin.  However, the readings will be proclaimed in the vernacular, once they have been recited by the priest in Latin.  This is practical, so as to keep the universality of the Mass in tact.  Example...if a German is assisting at Mass in France, the readings being proclaimed in Latin first would afford him the opportunity to hear and follow the readings in a tongue that is familiar to him and allows for him to follow with his missal prior to the proclamation in the vernacular which he may not understand.

Next let's speak to architecture.

There must be a return to vertical theology with regard to architecture.  This necessitates several things.

1.  A separation of the sanctuary from the nave.  There must be a step up into the sanctuary and there must be a boundary to know that the sacrificial action is taking place...so the return of an altar rail.  (We'll deal with other functions of the altar rail later).

2.  The return of a praedella for the altar and  the altar should be elevated by 3 or 5 steps.  It should be an odd number, because the final step (traditionally an even number) is to heaven.
a.  a crucifix must return to the center of the altar elevated on a throne (if a tabernacle is on the altar, then above the tabernacle).
b.  six candles must return to the altar for the celebration of high Mass.  Two smaller candles to be brought out for the celebration of low Mass.
c.  a return to ad orientem positioning even on freestanding altars.

3.  The tabernacle should be central.  If it is not returned to the altar, it should be immediately behind and it should have a pride of place (raised upon a pedestal) which allows for proper adoration and meditiation outside of Holy Mass.

4.  There should be a proper pulpit for preaching.  There may be a smaller ambo, but it should not be the same as the pulpit.

5.  The priest's sedelia (chair) should return to a north facing direction and should be flanked on either side by chairs for the deacons/acolytes (servers if deacons/acolytes are not available).  The reasoning for the north facing direction is to be ever diligent for the heathens coming from the North.

6.  Extra seating for choir or extra servers will be choir fashion both on the epistle and the Gospel side.

If there are any non-sacred objects in the sanctuary, they should be removed, such as pianos, clavinovas, electric organs, choral areas, etc.  There should be either side altars returned to the sides or shrines to the BVM and the appropriate saint or to Christ himself.  This will add to the sacrality of the space.

While this seems like a very large undertaking and one that is very expensive...how large of an undertaking was it for the original parishoners to build churches in the early days, which still stand, or how large of an undertaking was it for our parents and grandparents to destroy that in the 1970s?  This can be done.  It is not impossible.  Obviously there are degrees of ceremony, but following the model of three, let's assume there are three levels...low (said Mass), high (sung Mass), solemn (sung Mass with deacons/acolytes).

Thoughts?

----------

The rubrics have force of Liturgical Law.  They must be adhered to otherwise the consequences will result in ecclesiastical correction up to and including censure.  Liturgical law holds the same weight as Canon Law.

Liturgy of the Word.

1.  The priest and ministers process in (remove biretta if wearing one), genuflects to the Blessed Sacrament and the priest reverences the altar with a kiss.  He then begins the Mass at the altar.

2.  At the altar he starts the introductory prayers.  This should be some form of oblation similiar to the Prayers at the Foot.  It could include Psalm 42 or some other appropriate Psalm, but it must be uniform and not be a proper...it cannot change.  And the confetior is said.
a.  He is flanked either by his deacons or master of ceremonies/servers (in lieu of deacons), who will respond to him with the faithful.

3.  He then approaches the mensa, and prays the Introit and says the kyrie.
a.  If there is incense, the altar is incensed at this time. Flanked by his deacons, if present.
b.  The master of ceremonies will remove the Missal for the incensing.
c.  A Kyrie may be sung at this point.

4.  He intones the Gloria and remains at the altar while it is sung.
a.  If deacons are present, they are lined up behind him.  Deacon of the Mass on the second step, deacon of the Word/acolyte on the floor.

5.  He turns to face the people and then moves to the epistle side and prays the collect, with hands in the orans position.
a.  If deacons are present they will line up behind the celebrant.  Deacon of the Mass on the second step, deacon of the Word/acolyte on the floor.
b.  Immediately following they will move to the sedilia.

6.  He immediately begins the proclamation of the readings
a.  If there are two readings he will read the gradual between.
b.  The gradual will be sung at this point.
c.  The responsorial psalm is suppressed.
d.  The alleluia/tract is then read by the priest on the epistle side and he moves to the center to offer prayers for the reciting of the Gospel.
e.  The master of ceremonies moves the Missal to the Gospel side.
f.  The priest proclaims the Gospel with a slight turn northward.

a1.  during Solemn Mass, the readings will be sung as the priest recites the epistles.
b1.  during Solemn Mass, the gospel will be sung in lieu of the priest reciting it, but the priest will turn from the center of the altar to face the readings.

g.  Immediately following the readings, the priest will move to the sedilia for the first time to sit while the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular (sans the gradual and alleluia/tract).  This is done from the smaller ambo.  At the conclusion of the reciting of the readings, the deacon of the Word/acolyte will offer prayers for the sick and infirmed, those needing prayers, the parish, the diocese, the Church and for vocations to the priesthood.  This is not a call an response prayer, but rather a meditation upon the list he brings forth to the faithful.
7.  The priest then moves to the pulpit and preaches on the Gospel.  This is a reflection upon the Gospel only or a theme related to the Gospel.  To preach upon anything else is not appropriate during the homily, unless it is of imperative need to the parish church (this could be extended to include proper catechesis on a particular issue or a specific directive from the bishop, but it should be rare).

8.  The priest then moves to the center of the altar, genuflects and ascends to begin the Creed.

This ends the Liturgy of the Word...the formula is not necessarily an exact copy of the TLM, but it is close.  We must not forget that the reform of the reform must have a starting point.  It should not be started from how the liturgy is now, but rather how the liturgy was at the time of the first reform.  So, it necessarily will have similarities to the TLM, much more so than the Novus Ordo.  That is to be expected though, as the growth of the reform should be organic.

Regarding music:  If the Mass is sung, the following will be adhered to; the propers will be chanted and the ordinaries will be sung.  Several of the propers (introit, gradual and alleluia/tract, communion) will always be chanted by a schola in Latin.  The ordinaries may be either sung or chanted.  They may be sung, if the music is deemed to be apt for the liturgy based upon very clear criteria, which has been laid out throughout the history of the Church and using those intruments which are apt for sacred music.

What would you add, change or remove?

The Reform of the Reform...Epic Fail?

Many people ask, why all the hairsplitting about reform of the reform.  The reason for the hairsplitting is precisely because there is no doctrine left, being taught in the liturgy.  It ceased to be taught in the 1950s in favor of rubrics.  And that was all done by design.   The argument was: "If we take the theology away, then changing the rubrics will be easy and reteaching the theology and the rubrics won't be an issue."

And that is exactly what has happened.  The problem with all of this is that the Mass ceased to be what it was.  It ceased to be a sacrifice of the priest and it became (at best) the sacrifice of the assembly (Fr. Jungmann) with the priest as presider.

So, things like the pre-'55 Holy Week is unimaginable because there is no theology left to support something of that nature.  You say that only 20 years ago these things would have been laughed off as dreams...perhaps you're right, but that is in spite of the so-called "reform of the reform."  What has the reform of the reform achieved?  A new translation?  Since when was a translation of the Mass ever necessary?  The fact is that the reform of the reform did EXACTLY what it intended NOT to do.  Return the TLM to a pride of place.  The reform of the reform was intended to bring about a more "authentic" Novus Ordo.  Epic. Fail.  What it did was bring back an affinity for the TLM.

And that's ok.  But we need to understand that those who are in support of the reform of the reform are missing the point.  It is clear, by the absolutely staggering growth of Traddy-ism, that the reform of the reform won't ever really gain a foothold.  If it were, then the fruits would be seen.  As it is those fruits have gone to Traddy-ism.  What are the two most difficult seminaries to get into in the USA?  Denton and Winona.  Not Emmitsburg, or Mundelien.  The FSSP and the SSPX.

Again, what has the reform of the reform done with regard to shoring up the Mass?  Well, we got a new translation. And.............nothing else.  The rubrics haven't changed, so there is nothing which holds a priest accountable for his actions at Mass AND the average Catholic doesn't know what he will get when he goes to Holy Mass in the OF.  Which penitential rite?  Which reading (long or short)? Which Eucharistic prayer?  Which Agnus Dei?  How many forms of Communion?  Will he hear the propers or not?  What kind of music will he get?  Will it be Polka, or praise and worship, or Protestant hymns (Amazing Grace and How Great Thou Art)?  Will he hear chant?  The reform of the reform has not even come close to addressing these things.

But when the average Catholic goes to the TLM, he knows exactly what he'll get from start to finish.  Which is noble simplicity?  Riddle me that!

The reason the reform of the reform has been blasted as being artificial, is because at this point it is.  It has not made it out of the starting blocks.  It has stalled and it is artificial.  The organic growth of the liturgy has brought us full circle to the TLM, not to the reform of the reform.

What actually must take place for a reform of the reform is well, reform.  Not a new translation, not an accountability check on the rubrics as they stand, but an honest to goodness reform and it sure seems that nobody is interested in actually doing that.

The argument is that there must be study and implementation for something like that?  Really?  How many changes took place between the Pontificates of Pius X and Paul VI?  Study and implementation are code words for the establishment to keep the reform of the reform in the hypothetical....AND IT WORKED!!!!  It worked so well that there has been no reform of the reform, but rather a return to the TLM.  Why?  Because the Novus Ordo was deficient in function (rubrics with no enforceable liturgical law) and form (a change in theology).

So, if we are going to actually reform the Novus Ordo, what is going to change?  And why?  Will there be a change in the offertory?  In the rubrics?  In the language?  In music? In theology (please God)?  In all of it?  How much?  When?  Why? How?  Those are the questions that need to be answered.