Archive for the ‘Liturgy’ Category

A prefatory note: One may rightly wonder, why now? After six years of a new corrected translation of the Roman Missal isn’t a post like this beating a dead horse? Life just isn’t that simple. Sometimes you realize how wonderful a thing is and it brings you joy; sometimes you realize how much the negligent absence of that thing influenced you and your joy has been mixed with a good dose of pissed. The fact is that the old people of the Church robbed my generation and the succeeding one of much, then in pastoral solicitude scratch their heads at our wanting what was kept from us while telling us we don’t know what we’re talking about and diagnosing us with some sort of neurosis. Bitter? It’s obvious I am, but also hopeful and grateful. So let’s dig in to the season of Advent, its prayers, the translation of those prayers, the effect of translations, and the gratitude that wells in my heart (for it truly does) that we now have this translation, which for all its imperfections is unarguably better than the one of… old? 

Advent night

There’s something about Advent. I am only just realizing this year that it may be my favorite liturgical season. It has such a different feel after the many months of Ordinary Time; the change is striking and immediate. The prayers, the antiphons, and petitions have a different sensation to them. I am convinced that the 2011 ICEL has had a significant impact on coming to this realization for me. The prayers of Advent – now correctly translated – have a richness lost in the 1973 ICEL. For instance, the Collect for the 2nd Sunday of Advent in the previous translation reads:

God of power and mercy,
open our hearts in welcome.
Remove the things that hinder us
from receiving Christ with joy,
so that we may share his wisdom
and become one with him
when he comes in glory,…

The translation we currently have (2011 ICEL) which is a more accurate translation of both the letter and spirit of the Latin reads:

Almighty and merciful God,
may no earthly undertaking hinder those
who set out in haste to meet your Son,
but may our learning of heavenly wisdom
gain us admittance to his company.

The words “set out in haste to meet your Son” first caught my attention. They continue the petition found in the Collect for the 1st Sunday of Advent which asks God to grant us “the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ.” There is a strong persistent impulse in Advent of going forth to meet our Lord, the Love of our heart. In this season we say with the prophet Elijah, “With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord God of hosts.” We are awaiting the advent of the Lord, but we need not wait until He comes again to meet Him. We can meet Him today, now; we can make haste running forth to meet Him. This is not passive, but virile.

Zeal for the Lord does not consist only in running forth to meet Him, but also of what we meet Him with: “righteous deeds” as the Collect for the 1st Sunday of Advent tells us (again, 2011 ICEL). In this past Sunday’s Collect this is expressed through a contrast of undertakings, and this was the second aspect of the prayer that caught my attention. We pray that “no earthly undertaking hinder” us. An earthly undertaking is not necessarily bad. There are a great many earthly undertakings that are important, urgent, beneficial, and done for the glory of God. However, they must be properly ordered. What Martha was doing was important, but Mary chose the better part. During this time of year preparation for Christmas means gift buying, decoration buying, decorating, guests coming over, traveling, larger gatherings with more mouths to feed, in short, a long list of things that put financial strain on most people and add stress to an even greater number of people. In such a condition are we really making haste to meet God’s Son? For my own part, this season also marks the end of the semester and a mountain of grading. Does this valuable earthly undertaking pull me away from running to meet our Lord? Today I ask God in this Collect that the duties of my job may be properly ordered and not be a hinderance to my meeting Jesus Christ.

To rightly order our earthly undertakings and for them not to become a hindrance requires zeal. Our zealousness provides the drive and stamina to turn to the Lord and keep our gaze fixed on Him. This brings us to the second undertaking: “our learning of heavenly wisdom.” It is this undertaking which “gain[s] us admittance to His company,” an undertaking by which we may become His co-heirs. The learning of heavenly wisdom requires first and foremost dedicated prayer, both liturgical and personal. It requires detachment from the world and attachment to divine things. This prayer draws our attention to the necessity of ascesis. (Church Life Journal has a magnificent article on Advent being a time of asceticism and another good article on the positive meaning of asceticism).

All of this comes from the 2011 ICEL. Does the former 1973 ICEL do this? There is no learning of heavenly wisdom. Rather we “share his wisdom.” The difference is subtle, but important. Today we learn so that we may be admitted into His company. The learning is anticipatory to final communion. In the former translation, His wisdom was shared with us a result of that communion “when he comes in glory.” Look at the way the sentences are structured in the two above prayers. The second is clearly preparatory while the first is promise. The former translation also limits our awareness of what hinders us. In the current translation we ask that our earthly undertakings, our earthly work may not hinder us. But in the former, we ask God to “remove the things that hinder us.” This gives a decidedly negative understanding. We ask God to remove our sins, to “lead us not into temptation,” and to remove obstacles. We do not ask Him to remove our earthly undertakings. If you’re asking for that, find a new job! Or a new life for that matter, an earthly undertaking can be maintenance on the house, responsibilities to your spouse and children, school, and other such things. The positive meaning of our various works and the true orientation of all things in life is lost in the 1973 ICEL.

More problematic and that for which I am sore is the lack of a sense of imperative toward the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The prayer of the Church directly affects our understanding of the mysteries of our faith and our response. Advent comes from Latin for “a coming, approach, arrival”. Yes, Advent is a season of preparation for Christmas, the first arrival of our Lord, but the thrust of the season is preparation for His Second Coming.  We do not merely wait for Him though! If you go by the 1973 translations you may very well thing that is what we do. Do good and wait for Him to come. But no, this is not what the Church says to us. She says that we must “resolve to run forth to meet” Him (1st Sunday, 2011 ICEL), not just give an “eager welcome” (1st Sunday, 1973 ICEL). She says we must “set out in haste to meet” our Lord at His coming (2nd Sunday, 2011 ICEL), not merely receive (2nd Sunday, 1973 ICEL, see above). There is an urgency here. We want Him to return. Most people are terrified of the prospect of His returning or give it no mind at all. But Christians should want Him to come, and it should not be a coming that they fear if they “run forth… with righteous deeds,” are not hindered by “earthly undertakings”, and pursue “learning of heavenly wisdom.” I only fear the coming of the One I love if I have not been faithful to Him.

I was raised, “catechized”, formed, studied theology, and began teaching the faith with the 1973 ICEL. My attitude about the Second Coming? Don’t think about it; don’t give it any mind. It’s impossible to know when He will come again so don’t give any thought to it. If we seek Him, live in Him, etc. then we have nothing to worry about when He comes. Live your day for today. It sounds like good advice except that is is not consistent with what the Church exhorts us to. Do not merely live for today and be ready when He arrives. No, live for His arrival anticipated this day. Each day we should run forth to Him, each day we should make haste, and each day we should do so with righteous deeds – the multiplication of our fruits and talents. The first attitude is passive, does not give much thought to our Lord, and is even a little works-centered in that everything is cool as long as I’m doing good. What the Church exhorts us to in the Collects of Advent (current translation) is not passive, very much orients our minds to Jesus Christ, and puts our righteous works in proper order.

Starry night

The picture above reminds me of mystery. There is so much I do not know, so much that is impossible for me to know, to experience, to delight in. God the Creator knows them all and delights in it all. From Him comes the mystery of creation and from Him comes the greater mystery of redemption. The Creator, Redeemer, God Incomprehensible and Ineffable is the One who comes to us, the great Lover coming to His beloved. What wonder and magnificence is in this. It is only in Him that I can know and delight in all that my heart desires and more. Why would I simply make sure my house is in order and wait to receive Him (however joyous and eager that reception may be) when He comes again? Thank you, Lord God, for these prayers which express and embolden my heart , and direct my mind to You and Your coming.


Read Full Post »

double meaning

It has been three weeks since Cardinal Sarah made his appeal for ad orientem worship. In that time three bishops (that I know of) in the English speaking world have sent letters to the priests of their dioceses stating that it is their expectation that they celebrate the Ordinary Form of Mass versus populum, facing the people. The letters are from Bishop Amos of the Diocese of Davenport, Bishop Taylor of the Diocese of Little Rock, and Archbishop Vincent Card. Nichols of the Archdiocese of Westminster. The letters can be read respectively here, here, and here. In each instance GIRM 299 was used as the justification for the bishops’ insistence to their clergy.

The use of GIRM 299 is extremely problematic, but there is no reason to go into detail here concerning why that is. It has been explained by others much more qualified than myself on many occasions that the current English translation of n. 299 is faulty. The first that I know of is Fr. John Hunwicke back in 2001 prior to his entering into the fullness of the Church. His concise explanation can be read HERE. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has also written about it many times: most recently HERE. Both of them and others I have read have provided a translation that better reflects the Latin. While I have come across two who challenge their translation of n. 299 and while the Italian agrees with the current English, Fr. Hunwicke’s and Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s translation are consistent with the French, German, Polish, and Portuguese translations of the GIRM. Long story short, however, no matter how you translate it, the CDW has clarified on multiple occasions that n. 299 does not exclude ad orientem worship and that no bishop may suppress ad orientem celebration of the Ordinary Form. Both ad orientem and versus populum are proper to the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite, and priests do not need permission from their Ordinary for the use of either orientation. In this post, however, I would like to focus on a very serious problem that has been manifesting itself among some in the presbyterate and episcopacy: intolerance and the imposition of, in Card. Nichols’s words, their “personal preference or taste” on the laity (a horrible action of clericalism, I might add).

In his letter to priests, Cardinal Nichols said, “I emphasize that the celebration of the Church’s Liturgy is not a place in which priests are to exercise personal preference or taste.” It is sad the His Eminence has reduced Card. Sarah’s appeal to mere preference and taste. It is firmly rooted in the perennial tradition of the Church. It is founded in a rich and deep theology and spirituality. I have heard from multiple priests that celebrating Mass ad orientem strengthened their vocation and spiritual life. These are men who had been and also still do celebrate Mass versus populum. I have read testimonies from priests about how celebrating Mass ad orientem was an essential part of the renewal of the parish. I have heard people relate how a parish was strengthened when its pastor began celebrating some or all Masses ad orientem. None of that is a matter of mere preference or taste, especially when such good spiritual fruits have come forth from it. Rather, that is heart speaking to heart. It is an event in which they encountered the Lord in a way they hadn’t before.

Speaking for myself, I prefer (and, yes, it is quite appropriate to say that) ad orientem. But that preference is not merely subjective and individualistic, and it is most certainly not first and foremost academic. It comes from an experience. I had learned of ad orientem worship and the theology connected to it years before I experienced it, and during that time, while there was occasionally a curiosity, I had never felt compelled to seek it out and I was perfectly content going to Mass celebrated versus populum. In fact, I then preferred Mass facing the people and defended it. But I will never forget the first time I attended Liturgy celebrated ad orientem. I had never before felt so connected to the other people in the congregation, I had never felt so unified in action, and I had never experienced dialogue between priest and people so acutely. While the celebration being ad orientem was not the only factor that brought this sense of unity and connectedness about, it was a crucial factor. It is a rarity that Mass is celebrated ad orientem, but when I am able to attend Mass celebrated this way I find that my attention is much more focused on the action at the altar. I look at the altar. This is exactly the desire expressed in GIRM 299 when it states, “The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.” Unconsciously, my attention was turned toward the altar during the celebration of Mass ad orientem. However, almost every Mass I go to is celebrated versus populum, and I have noticed that, at first unconsciously and now quite consciously, my attention is almost always averted from the altar. The reason is very simple: the priest’s face distracts me. If I look at the altar I almost always end up focusing on the priest rather than the Eucharistic sacrifice. Consequently I spend the vast majority of Mass either head bowed with my eyes closed or looking above the priest to the crucifix. Either way, Mass celebrated versus populum has become a very private affair for me, while Mass celebrated ad orientem is a very communal affair for me. None of that happened consciously. How we use our bodies affects our spiritual, devotional, and liturgical lives; this is just the natural consequence of the different orientations of our bodies at Mass, and only after the fact did I become aware of it. As an aside, I think it is worth mentioning and pondering that often when I ask people why they prefer versus populum they respond that seeing the priest’s face makes them feel more connected to him. Funny. We should be focused on and connected with our Eucharistic Lord and to God the Father to whom the sacrifice is offered, yet the primary concern expressed so many times is that of feeling connected to the priest.

Perhaps some are not comfortable speaking of preference and taste. Instead we can properly speak of sensibility. My experience given above is expressive of my sensibility and there are many others (even if proportionally small) who share my sensibility. In this manner we may speak not just of the sensibility of individuals, but of communities or groups within communities. This relates directly to GIRM 299 and it is on this point that I find the actions of these bishops especially egregious. The relevant part of n. 299 reads in the current English translation:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible [(or “where it is possible”) emphasis mine].

In Latin:

Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit [emphasis mine].

Concerning this instruction and the question of celebrating the Ordinary Form ad orientem, the CDW issued a clarification on September 25, 2000. In particular I would like to draw attention to what the clarification says concerning ubicumque possibile sit [where it is possible]. Cardinal Estevez, then Prefect of the CDW, said:

The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc [emphasis mine].

It has been explicitly stated by the CDW that “wherever possible” does not only refer to physical conditions such as space and topography, but also to “the sensibility of the people.” Thanks to Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy there are a good many people who have been introduced to and are open to ad orientem. I am one of those people. I was born in 1979. In fact, most of the people today who would like to see ad orientem celebration of the Ordinary Form are people born after Vatican II, people who grew up with the Missal of Paul VI and versus populum worship. Most priests who would like to celebrate ad orientem are younger and it holds far more interest for seminarians today than it did for seminarians in decades past. There is a movement in the Church, a movement energized by the laity, for a more solemn and reverent celebration of Holy Mass and this includes celebration ad orientem. Proportionally it is a small group, but they are not at all difficult to find. There are enough people with this sensibility to constitute a movement in the Church. I hope that bishops and priests will give due attention with a pastor’s solicitude to these people in their dioceses and parishes. Unfortunately, some have simply opted to steamroll them.




Read Full Post »


Pope Francis celebrating Mass in the ordinary form ad orientem

On July 5, Robert Card. Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW), appointed as prefect by His Holiness, Pope Francis, gave a speech in London at the Sacra Liturgia international conference. The speech is available in its entirety: HERE. It is well worth a read. The subject of the speech was that of moving toward an authentic implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Cardinal Sarah introduced his topic with a quote from Pope Francis. It comes from a message Francis sent on February 18, 2014, to a symposium celebrating the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The whole of the message can be read here. The following part of the message was used by Cardinal Sarah in London:

It is necessary to unite a renewed willingness to go forward along the path indicated by the Council Fathers, as there remains much to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on the part of the baptized and ecclesial communities. I refer, in particular, to the commitment to a solid and organic liturgical initiation and formation, both of lay faithful as well as clergy and consecrated persons.

Again, these are Francis’s words, not Cardinal Sarah’s. Francis says that 50 years after its promulgation there is still “much to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” While Francis’s comments are not limited to this, he says that he is particularly referring “to the commitment to a solid and organic liturgical initiation and formation” of all Christ’s faithful. What is of particular interest is that Francis explicitly includes clergy in this. In the last section of his speech, Cardinal Sarah gives a few suggestions for moving forward to accomplish “a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” Taking his cue from Pope Francis, the first suggestion he gives is examining the quality and depth of liturgical formation, especially that of clergy.

Unfortunately, there are many in the Church who have ignored his speech as a whole, opting instead to focus on one thing – his appeal to clergy to celebrate Holy Mass ad orientem. The response has been swift and loud (in some cases vilifying, but we won’t look at those). Ironically, the responses to Cardinal Sarah’s appeal have only served as proof that the Cardinal was right concerning the need to examine the quality and depth of liturgical formation. Let’s look at some of these responses to see this.

The Vatican Clarification

Six days after Cardinal Sarah gave his speech a clarification concerning ad orientem worship was issued by the Holy See Press Office. Some like the Catholic Herald have misrepresented this with headlines such as: “Vatican rejects Cardinal Sarah’s ad orientem appeal”.

Yoda fail

Others such as Crux have represented what the Vatican actually did do: Vatican squelches rumors of new rules on Mass facing east.

Picard correct

In fairness to the Catholic Herald though, the Holy See Press Office’s clarification needs clarification. The full text of the clarification can be read here. In the third paragraph it states that the extraordinary form of the Roman rite must not take the place of the ordinary form. What this has to do with anything is beyond me. Cardinal Sarah did not make an appeal for the extraordinary form; he made an appeal for ad orientem worship. This statement from Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) is ambiguous and can give the impression that ad orientem is proper to the extraordinary form, but not the ordinary, hence, confusing the extraordinary form with ad orientem worship. That is patently false. Celebrating Mass ad orientem is proper to both forms of the Roman rite.

Before making this confused statement about the extraordinary and ordinary forms, Fr. Lombardi quotes GIRM 299 (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) pointing out that “it contains the norms relating to the Eucharistic celebration and is still in full force.” It is the first half of the instruction which is relevant to our topic:

The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

The implication made, especially in light of what Fr. Lombardi said concerning the extraordinary and ordinary forms, is that versus populum is prescribed by the GIRM to the exclusion of ad orientem. However, the English translation is faulty. A lot of ink has been spilled concerning the proper translation and meaning of n. 299. A simple google search will bring up many results. Fr. Hunwicke’s analysis is a good place to start. For our purposes it is enough to look at what the CDW said concerning n. 299 sixteen years ago. In 2000 many inquiries had been made to the CDW concerning n. 299 and ad orientem worship in the ordinary form. In a response given September 25, 2000, Cardinal Jorge Estevez, then Prefect of the CDW, said:

It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility. [Emphasis mine]

A suggestion, not an obligation. “Seems” isn’t exactly prescriptive. It does not exclude the other possibility: i.e. ad orientem. Not only is it not excluded, but as we’ll see below there are many rubrics which make greater sense in the context of celebration ad orientem than they do versus populum.

As an aside, Fr. Lombardi notes that “it is better to avoid using the expression ‘reform of the reform’ with reference to the liturgy, given that it has sometimes been a source of misunderstanding.” I would agree with him if Cardinal Sarah had used this term during something such as a presser on an airplane. However, Cardinal Sarah was speaking at a liturgical conference to an audience not only knowledgable of the liturgy, but also with the reform of the reform. Hence, he was well within practical prudence to use the expression.

The Spadaro Tweets

Fr. Antonio Spadaro, the editor of La Civilta Cattolica, took to twitter to express with many tweets (they are dated July 10) his support for Mass celebrated versus populum or facing the people. This would be fine if he gave his reasons for preferring versus populum over ad orientem worship. However, he did not do that. He posted quotes, paraphrases, and paragraph numbers from the GIRM in an attempt to show that the current rubrics call for Mass to be celebrated versus populum. One paragraph number he listed as supporting versus populum was n. 157:

When the prayer is concluded, the priest genuflects, takes the host consecrated in the same Mass, and, holding it slightly raised above the paten or above the chalice, while facing the people, says, Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God). With the people he adds, Domine, non sum dignus (Lord, I am not worthy). 

However, he fails to take into consideration (intentionally?) the very next paragraph, 158:

After this, standing and turned toward the altar, the priest says quietly, Corpus Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam (May the Body of Christ bring me to everlasting life) and reverently receives the Body of Christ. Then he takes the chalice, saying quietly, Sanguis Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam (May the Blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life), and reverently receives the Blood of Christ.

There are many times in the GIRM that the priest is instructed to face the people. From the perspective of versus populum worship, however, these instructions are entirely superfluous because the priest is already facing the people when he is at the altar. From the perspective of ad orientem worship, however, the number of times these instructions are given make perfect sense. It also should be no surprise from the perspective of ad orientem worship that the instruction to turn toward the altar is not nearly so frequent. If celebrating ad orientem the priest is instructed to face the people for one thing (such as inviting the assembly to pray) and then afterwards instructed to do something at the altar (such as praying over the offerings) the instruction to turn toward the altar is implied through its necessity. This sequence of events is exactly what happens in the instruction given in n. 146 of the GIRM which Fr. Spadaro quotes:

The priest, FACING THE PEOPLE and extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray -INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI 146

What Spadaro quotes is incomplete. The paragraph in full reads:

Upon returning to the middle of the altar, the priest, facing the people and extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray, saying, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren). The people rise and make their response: Suscipiat Dominus (May the Lord accept). Then the priest, with hands extended, says the prayer over the offerings. At the end the people make the acclamation, Amen.

So paragraph 146 of the GIRM concerns the “Orate, fratres,” for which even in the extraordinary form the priest is instructed to turn and face the people. For priests accustomed to celebrating ad orientem and for people accustomed to attending Masses celebrated ad orientem this instruction is wholly common.

None of the above is to imply that the current instruction favors or obligates one to ad orientem. That would be almost as ridiculous as saying that it requires versus populum. 

The Martin Tweet

After the clarification from Fr. Lombardi, Fr. James Martin, editor of America magazine, sent out a tweet:

Whoa. Vatican squashes rumors that said priests were about to be asked to celebrate Mass with backs to people.

The tweet can be seen with its reactions here. Unfortunately, by using the phrase, “with backs to people,” Fr. Martin has revealed that he is either ignorant concerning ad orientem worship and/or that he is prejudiced against it. No priest who celebrates ad orientem and no layman who attends ad orientem Masses says that the priest is celebrating with his back to the people. They say “facing East” or that the congregation and the priest are facing the Lord together.

In the GIRM often times when the priest is instructed to turn in such a way that he and the people would be facing the same direction it says, “toward the altar.” It never says, “back to the people.” In my experience the only people who speak of ad orientem worship as the priest celebrating with his back to the people are those who are not familiar with it either practically or theologically, or who are prejudiced against it. This was an exceptionally poor choice of words on the part of Fr. Martin.

Examining Liturgical Formation

Cardinal Sarah said that we must examine the quality and depth of the liturgical formation of the clergy, religious, and laity. He says that this formation is primarily and essentially that of immersion.

It is a question of living the liturgy in all its richness, so that having drunk deeply from its fount we always have a thirst for its delights, its order and beauty, its silence and contemplation, its exultation and adoration, its ability to connect us intimately with He who is at work in and through the Church’s sacred rites.

But this formation does not exclude formation in knowledge (cf. Sancrosanctum Concilium 15-17).

In addition to the necessity of living the liturgy, Card. Sarah adds:

that the full and rich celebration of the more ancient use of the Roman rite, the usus antiquior, should be an important part of liturgical formation for clergy, for how can we begin to comprehend or celebrate the reformed rites with a hermeneutic of continuity if we have never experienced the beauty of the liturgical tradition which the Fathers of the Council themselves knew and which has produced so many saints over the centuries?

This is common sense. Pope Francis has said, “there remains much to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on the part of the baptized and ecclesial communities.” Most of the faithful including the clergy give no thought whatsoever to the extraordinary form, and there are a good number (oh, how many I have met) who are antagonistic toward the extraordinary form. So many people including clergy do not see or know of the continuity between the two forms. How can we realize what the Second Vatican Council called for if we treat today’s liturgy as if it exists in an historical vacuum?

Fr. Lombardi, Fr. Spadaro, and Fr. Martin have all misrepresented the Mass. Fr. Lombardi was confused. Fr. Spadaro was misleading. Fr. Martin was either ignorant, prejudiced, or both. And, yet, these are three influential priests who people listen to; and they represent a great portion of the clergy in regards to thinking and practice. Through their reactions to Cardinal Sarah’s appeal for ad orientem worship, they have proven him correct on liturgical formation.


Pope Francis celebrating another Mass in the ordinary form ad orientem

Read Full Post »