Deficiency...Part II

It is wonderfully amazing how conversation can stir the human soul.  It can bring all sorts of emotion, but it can also stir reason as well....I was in a recent conversation with a peer about the Mass and here is how it went.

She said:

Has the NO contributed to the decay in our Church? The decay in the Church is what allowed the NO to happen. It has made the situation progressively worst. It has changed the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary to a  Happy Meal in the minds of the average Catholic. But just because it is in the mind of a Catholic, doesn't make it so. It is still the Holy Sacrifice, which is sufficient.

I responded:
Here is where we start to differ.  I firmly believe that the Novus Ordo, as celebrated today, has contributed to the decay in our Church.  This necessarily is the case, because the rules which governed the Novus Ordo have not, nor will they be strictly enforced.  I also don't believe this can happen, period.  My reasoning, because the "freedom of expression" was written into the Novus Ordo.  Whereas you look to the TLM and you'll see that there is no "freedom of expression."

Now, this aggiornamento or "freedom of expression" was supposed to be the salvation of the Church.  The loosening of the bonds of structure was supposed to draw people closer to the mystical Body of Christ.  I think that we can both agree that this simply hasn't been the case.  The numbers of practicing Catholics has decreased, the numbers of vocations has decreased, the catechetics has been dismal, the numbers of people who understand their faith has decreased...by and large, aggiornamento has been a disaster on an epic scale. 

This first extends to the Mass. The Novus Ordo was supposed to be the best expression of Catholic Sacramental doctrine, because it was going to allow for "noble simplicity."  The language was going to move to the vernacular (unfounded), people would understand the mystery and they would come in droves.  A lot of the ceremony would be eliminated, so the "people of God" would be able to relate to the Mass.  The prayers would be simplified, so that they could "get" what the Church was saying....all of these things have not drawn people to Mass.  Mass attendance is at it's lowest in history.  Why?  I believe it is because the structure of the Mass was fundamentally changed.  If the Mass is not "offensive" to Protestants any longer, what is the reasoning for staying Catholic?  What separates our worship from a Lutheran?  Or a Methodist?  Or a Calvinist?  The answer is nothing.  It is precisely this idea that the Mass is "offensive" which causes the Protestant to do one of two things; 1) Continue to protest, or 2) Convert.

Next however, this aggiornamento has brought the Church to the banality of Protestantism.  If there is nothing different, or offenisve to the Protestant, then what is a Catholic to think?  Eventually, he will think that there is no difference and at that point he will look to what he finds inside himself to be correct.  If the Lutheran prayer service (their liturgy) is appealing to the Catholic man, then why not go?  There is nothing offensive about the Catholic Mass to a Protestant and if they are mutually enriching, then why not go where it is most expressive to the particular man.  Look into Modernism, you'll see the idea that I just spelled out is a key component.


She went on to say:

Is the NO as sufficient as the TLM? Yes. They are both Masses, both bring the faithful the Eucharist, both approved by the Church, both should be given the same place in the Church. The Liturgy's summit is obvious the Eucharist, so this is about the Blessed Sacrament. Which is why that statement is wrong.

To which I responded:
If the Novus Ordo is as sufficient (FOR FAITH) as the TLM, then why is Mass attendance at the Novus Ordo so poor?  If it is just as enriching as the TLM, why hasn't the Novus Ordo grown the Church at the same rate as the TLM?  The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is something missing from the Mass.  If something is missing from the Mass, even though it is valid, it is deficient.  If Catholics relate 98% of their faith through the Mass, then it should be the Mass that is most sufficient.  I just don't see the Novus Ordo being that way.  If it were, then the growth of the Church would be commiserate with the historical numbers...right?

She then said:

We have allowed ourselves to conform to this world instead of being beacons of light.

To which I responded:
If that is the case, then what is our beacon?  If the Church is our continent and we are on a ship which is our journey, the Mass must be the beacon which draws us to the Church, for it is the official prayer of the Church.  It is how we most perfectly worship.  If our beacon is not sufficient, then we will crash upon the rocks.  For 1500 years, we have had a strong beacon and Catholicism grew.  For the last 40+ years, we have not, and the Church has not grown.

Christ was present to the Jews and they didn't accept Him.  His presence isn't enough.  There must be an acceptance and a submission to Him.  The Church is an all or nothing proposition.  It isn't just being in his presence which will draw us to Him.  It is accepting Christ fully.  We don't necessarily have to understand it perfectly, but we do have to accept Him fully.

If the Novus Ordo has the same salvific power, then why are people not embracing it the same way that they accepted the TLM?  No, salvation is not exclusive to the TLM, but the TLM is a more sufficient expression of faith.  I'm not saying that the Novus Ordo isn't valid, I'm saying that it isn't sufficient.  Presented with the two options Sacramentally, which is more desirable, that which more complete, or that which is more simple?

And I disagree, it is the rubrics which will save us.  If we didn't have rubrics, we wouldn't have the Mass.  The Mass is a process and insofar as the Mass is a process, there must be rules which bind it.  If the rules are not followed, then what?  Eventually you will have anarchy.  I don't think that you really want to argue that the necessity of the rubrics isn't tied to salvation.  They are.

She then goes on:

But the Sacrifice is the same therefore it is not deficient. Because solemnity of the Mass does not change because of our mindset.

 I answered that by saying:
The Mass is an action, not a mindset.  Insofar as it is an action, a mindset can change the solemnity of the Mass.  A pontifical Mass is more solemn than a Solemn Mass.  A Solemn Mass is more solemn than a Sung Mass.  A sung Mass is more solemn than a low Mass.  The reality is that mindset does effect action.  And insofar as that is the case, the Novus Ordo is deficient.  Why?  Because the mindset is not the same.  The mindset is to change the action.  When the Mass ceases to be a sacrifice and becomes a communal meal (mindset), the Mass becomes less than what it should be.

Let me put it to you this way, if a priest were to celebrate the Novus Ordo as the Church wishes, then there would be no problem with the validity or licitness of the Mass.  The problem lies in the fact that nobody can tell us exactly what the Church wishes, because the Church doesn't enforce the action of the Mass.  What you get from parish to parish is different.  BUT, if you go to the TLM, you get the same thing, no matter where you are.  Why?  Because the Church has been express in her administration of the Mass.  We can overtly know what the Church wants, because the Church enforces the action of the Mass.  How?  Through the rubrics.

Can this be accomplished through the Novus Ordo?  I don't think so, precisely because the Novus Ordo didn't come from the mind of the Church, it came from the desk of a Consilium.  It is fabricated and it is contrived.  I'm not saying that it isn't valid.  Pope Paul VI promulgated it, therefore it is valid, but it is deficient, because it came not from Tradition, but rather it came from innovation and fabrication.  It is a re-imagining of an immutable truth handed down through the ages by the Church.  Because it came from man and not from the Church, it is deficient.

The point of the Mass is not to know what the priest is saying, but rather it is to unite our souls to his action.  It doesn't matter if we can understand his prayers, but what does matter is that we can know that his prayers are being offered properly, efficiently, and with all devotion.

Also, the Council Fathers disagree with you.  They expected Catholics to understand Latin enough to be able to respond to the prayers.  So, I would argue that the vernacular is yet another abuse, which has become the norm.

Ask one of your priests, "Why don't we follow the mandate of the Council Fathers and use Latin, as put forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium?"

See, here's the deal...the Mass, which is the most visible sign of Catholicism was undermined.  It was watered down and it was changed arbitrarily.  The wishes of the Council Fathers were not followed, by the Pope or by his Consilium.  They pushed through a Mass which was/is less than what the Council intended and Paul VI signed off on it.  That makes it valid.  But that doesn't mean that it is licit.  Whether something is licit or not is based upon how it is carried out.  Clearly the Novus Ordo has not been carried out as the Council Fathers wished.  If it is not licit, then there is something missing.  If there is something missing, then it is deficient.

So, this begs the question, why assist at something which is not sufficient?  If the TLM is sufficient and the Novus Ordo is deficient, why would anyone willingly assist at it?

Can the Administration of a Sacrament Be Harmful to the Faith?

The other day, I heard a scenario that gave me pause...I've been thinking about it ever since and I'm going to expand upon the original idea...

Let's say one goes to Confession.  He confesses that he has been having an affair for 10 years with a co-worker and that he has been frigid with his wife.  He asks for absolution and is given it.  As he's getting up from the pew after making his penance and his thanksgiving, he runs into the priest who says, "Don't worry about what you confessed.  It really isn't all that bad, we all make mistakes and eventually your wife will forgive you."

The Sacrament of Confession was valid.  No question.  His sin was forgiven and he received absolution, but the priest did great harm to the penitent's faith because of his counsel after the administration of the Sacrament.  At that point, the priest was still acting as a counselor and the penitent had to take it as such, because the priest was engaging him about the Sacrament in which he just confected.

A Sacrament can be valid, but the administration can be harmful to the faith.

Now, let's take another example.  For 1500 years we've had a Mass which had developed over centuries.  It was codified in 1570 and for the next 400 years, it remained 99.9% unchanged.  The Faith of the Church was solidified and largely based upon this action which confected the Blessed Sacrament, with the others supporting the Eucharist. 

Fast forward 399 years, the Mass has now been changed to reflect the "changes" enacted by the Consilium on behalf of the Council Fathers.  The Mass is valid, because the intent, matter and form are still there.  But the innovations to the Mass are so great and so widespread that the faith is being harmed.  And the priest says, "Don't worry about the changes to the Mass.  They aren't all that bad.  We all need updating and we all change in the name of aggioramento."

A Sacrament can be valid, but the administration can be harmful to the faith.

This is why we must call for a return to the proper administration of the Sacraments.  Innovation and change on the scale that it took place in the Church, while valid has done irreparable harm to the faith.

• There is a reason why people are not staying in the Church.
• There is a reason why people are not assisting at Mass.
• There is a reason why people are not fulfilling their vocations.
• There is a reason why people are apathetic toward their faith.

Because the administration of the Sacraments has been put in a place where there is not one ounce of accountability for the actions of those who administer them.  Before there was.  There is a reason why the rubrics of the TLM are a sacred cow.  There is a reason why the rubrics of the NOM are not.

The harm that is being done to the faith in the administration of the Sacraments today answers the statements and gives reason to the list above.  This is more than just societal apathy and outward laziness.  This is a lack of accountability by the faithful for that which is our right.  And that right is to have the Sacraments confected properly.

Is the Novus Ordo Deficient?

A while back, I was participating at a website wherein I discovered after 7 years of participation, I was no longer welcome.  That was a sad day.  The whole thing started because I made the move from being a "mainstream" Catholic to being a "traditional" Catholic.  One of the first things that I posted was that I think the Novus Ordo is deficient, as a tool for worship.  I still agree with that assessment.  I will stand behind that assessment, due to several factors....

1.  It has been stripped of vital prayers
2.  It has been stripped of it's musical heritage
3.  It has been stripped of it's solemnity
4.  It is completely fabricated by men in the late 1960s.
5.  It constitutes a clean break with Tradition.
6.  The structure of the Mass fundamentally changed
7.  The nature of the Mass fundamentally changed

There are more reasons, but these are some of the key reasons I believe the Novus Ordo is deficient with regard to the TLM.  This view, eventually sent me through a series of suspensions and eventually caused me to ask for formal resignation (which still hasn't been granted, as I see my profile still exists).

As it turns out, my friend Fr. Z has posted a statement which seems to echo my view.  I wonder, would Fr. Z be banned from this website too?  Here is what was said over at WDTPRS:

A reader sent this.

Would that this Pope were heeded — and would that he heeded his own advice!
Paul VI on Liturgical Reform
The proper implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium] requires of you that the “new” and the “old” be brought together in a bond that is both suitable and beautiful. What must be avoided at all costs in this matter is that eagerness for the “new” exceed due measure, resulting in insufficient regard for, or entirely disregarding, the patrimony of the liturgy handed on. Such a defective course of action should not be called renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, but an overturning of it. The liturgy, in fact, displays a similarity to a hardy tree, the beauty of which shows a continual renewal of leaves, but whose fruitfulness of life bears witness to the long existence of the trunk, which acts through its deep and stable roots. In liturgical matters, therefore, no real opposition should occur between the present age and previous ages; but all should be done so that, whatever be the innovation, it be made to cohere and to concord with the sound tradition that precedes it, and so that from existing forms new forms grow, as through spontaneously blossoming from it.

Sent without citation.

Interesting, isn't it?  Fr. Z seems to be quoting something of which I am the same mind, yet a site where I was a major contributor for 7 years vilified me for holding the exact same view...my situation with the former site is a prime example of why the "mainstream" Church is suffering the trials it is right now with her faithful.  Because, the faithful are being fed from an insufficent source.

If the Church is to grow, then the Church should take heed to what Papa Ratzinger is trying to accomplish with the restoration of the TLM to equal footing.  The TLM is the authentic expression of the mind of the Church, it's continuity lies within the 2000 year history of the Church.  The Novus Ordo most simply put; is the invention of a committee headed by an embattled priest in the 1960s.  It has been said that nothing good came from the 1960s, that certainly is the case with the Novus Ordo.  While it is valid, it certainly is not contiguous with the 2000 year history of the Church.

It IS the "great experiment which failed."  An entire generation of Catholics hung their liturgical hats on a priest who ended up failing as a diplomat with Muslims in a country that didn't want him.  And what he left us, is a deficient form of worship which has produced NOTHING of what it promised.  NOT ONE THING!

The Novus Ordo didn't draw the faithful to Mass.
The Novus Ordo didn't expand the theological framework of the liturgy
The Novus Ordo didn't edify and grow vocations to the priesthood.
The use of the vernacular didn't make the Mass more intelligible
The Novus Ordo did exactly one thing...prove that man cannot re-imagine the Church in his own image.

Save the Liturgy, Save the World.

I Wonder Sometimes About the Lies....

This may sound a little uncharitable, but to be honest, I think that the truth is the truth.  If I offend anyone, let him be offended.

I am in a conversation regarding John Corapi...the following was said...

Why does he look like a hell's angels member?

(regarding his dress on a YouTube channel.)

The reason is that it's a persona change. That's why. Also, for the older yuppies, Harley Davidson clothing is a "cool" look right now.

I think that it's deplorable that he has the same attitude as the rest of society..."If it doesn't suit ME, then I don't want to do it." Being a priest isn't about John Corapi. Being a priest is about abandoning the self and dedicating one's life to God. Bottom line, end of story.

The fact that John Corapi has left "active ministry" is a telling tale. If he is a priest forever. Based upon the following video from John Corapi proves him to be a liar. A LIAR!!!

First Pontifical Mass at Elysburg Carmel

From our friends over at NLM:

A reader sent in news and pictures about the the first Pontifical Mass offered at the Carmel of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Elysburg, PA since its founding in 2009. We have mentioned this monastery before (cf here and here). Here is what he writes:

Bishop William Waltersheid, the celebrant of the Mass, was at that time the Vicar for Clergy and Religious in the Diocese of Harrisburg and played an instrumental role in bringing the sisters to Elysburg, where a Carmelite monastery stood empty after it was closed a few years earlier due to lack of vocations. Recently appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Pittsburg, he returned to celebrate his first Pontifical Mass for their patronal feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Living the traditional Carmelite rule and praying the traditional Mass and Office, the sisters have continued to flourish in their new house, attracting many young vocations from around the country. His Excellency Bishop Joseph McFadden, Bishop of the Diocese of Harrisburg in which the Carmel is located, assisted at the Mass from the Throne. Many Diocesan Priests and seminarians came to fulfill the roles of Sacred Ministers and servers for the Mass.

See more pictures at this link.

(Photos courtesy of Mr. Chris Heisey)

 I think that it is important for those of us in Iowa to understand the importance of the presence of the bishop as celebrant in the TLM.  When the TLM is celebrated as Pontifical Mass, this is how the Mass is intended to be celebrated, for the bishop is our pastor.  When a priest celebrates Mass, he does it as regent of the bishop, who cannot be in all places at once.  Until that day in Iowa, when we can see the proper celebration of a Pontifical Mass (TLM), we will have to rely on photos and traveling to witness and worship at this celebration of the Holy Mass.

Let this be our prayer, that we will see this one day soon...

Update on Cardinal Canizares's Statement...

I posted this on Card. Canizares on Thursday.  It seems to have caught steam since then...Michael Voris has picked up on the story and has commented on it.  I have to say, I agree with his assessment 100%.  Here it is:

Places I Go...

Steve GershomArs Orandi
Caritas in Veritate
The New Liturgical Movement
Orbis Catholicus Secundus
Rorate Caeli
The Maccabean
Fr Z's blog -- What Does the Prayer Really Say

These are my main checks right now.  I also read three newspapers every day, the Des Moines Register, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (all online).  That way I can get the liberal view, the conservative view and the local view.