« Out of limbo | Main | Real Alternatives »

April 20, 2007

Comments

Romulus

the pre-Vatican II Mass, in light of controversial passages it contains regarding Judaism.???

Woody Jones

Motu first.

Argue later.

Where motu?

Jordan Potter

Romulus, it's a reference mainly to the old Good Friday liturgy, including the Reproaches ("O my people, what have I done to thee, or in what have I offended thee. Answer me."), the Good Friday Prayer of the Faithful for the conversion of the Jews (rewritten post-Vatican II in a euphemistic or implicit manner), and of course the reference to the "perfidious Jews." After so many centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, fueled in part by inappropriate and infelicitous interpretations of the liturgyu, the Church toned down it's liturgical language about the Jews. The Pre-Vatican II liturgy can and should be interpreted in a way that makes clear that anti-Semitism is not be countenanced or promoted, that Jews are not "Christ-killers," but it is understandable that Jews, given the past painful and shameful history of Christian relations with the Jews, would be worried about Catholics praying the old liturgy.

Richard

I think "blatant Marcionism" is laying it on a little thick.

The Classic Rite may have inadequate attention to OT readings, but that's different from saying it rejects them altogether.

Romulus

Thanks, Jordan. I know about the Jewish objections to language in the Good Friday liturgy; it was Allen's reference to the Mass that threw me. He ought to have been more specific, as he surely understands the distinction.

Is this it, or is there another controversy I haven't heard of?

MAB

Jordan-

The Good Friday prayer - written centuries ago when "perfidious" meant something akin to "partially faithful" - addresses the need for conversion of the "fide" (Christian faithful=fully accepting of God's plan for salvation), the "perfide" (Jews who only accept part of the salvation plan), and the "infide" (infidels who reject the whole plan).
Over the centuries, in secular usuage, "perfidious" took on additional meanings, as many, many words do.
It's a bum rap to say the theological meaning of "perfide" is what it became centuries later in secular usage. Just like it would be a bum rap to search through all the songs and books and letters, etc. of yesteryear that used the word "gay" when it commonly meant "happy and carefree" and to charge that all those people were admitting to being homosexuals when the word "gay" didn't come to mean "homosexual" in common parlance until very recently.

fred

It never occured to me before that the Motu would apply to more than just the Mass. Does approval of the 1962 Mass automatically include a return to the 1962 Latin rite for ALL rituals and occasions?

Latino

Memorial for S. Pius V will be April, 30...

Rich Leonardi

The wag is Maureen, a.k.a., Suburban Banshee; Curt Jester linked to her post.

amy welborn

No - Maureen's list is different. The list from which Allen quotes is Jeff Miller's.

Rich Leonardi

Ah. I sit corrected.

patrick kinsale

Here's a link to the Boston College document Allen cites in his story. Is it anti-Semitic to pray for the conversion of the Jews?

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/1962_missal.htm

Fr. John

Am I the only one who sees a problem with two concurrently existing rites in the Latin Church? The Mass is supposed to bring us together. Having two different rites, appealing to two differet groups of the faithful, would seem to further the divisions among us. There are problems with the post-Vatican II rites. There are problems with the pre-Vatican II rites, especially if they are revived without a means of updating the calendar to accommodate more recently canonized saints (e.g. Padre Pio). Are we to have two feasts for some saints? Is Ascension Day to be celebrated on two different days in the same parish in the US? I fear that we will unleash more than we know if the predictions of the moto proprio are correct.

EileenR

Fr. John, those are interesting questions, but I think, from reading Benedict XVI's pre-papacy reflections on the question he believes that we already took that leap when we instituted the Novus Ordo. He appeals to the longstanding tradition of the Church that old rites cannot be banned out of hand.

Marc

Two calendars is problematic, but I don't foresee releasing the chains and setting free the Tridentine Mass will increase the rate of dividing Roman Catholics in the Latin rite any further than it is now.

The normative novus ordo Mass is balkanized in its present form and more influence of the Tridentine Mass hopefully will aid and assist over time in bringing about new revelations on how to bring holy and reverant unity into the normative form. With the present form, Catholics are destined to become quasi-evangelicals.

Ed the Roman

We need the services of an Oriental Orthodox secret agent to ferret out the details.

Hello, Mr. Motu.

Rich Leonardi

Fr. John,

So you would have the Holy Father rescind Ecclesia Dei, correct? Because you can make the same argument against it.

Sr. Lorraine

Fr John's question does provoke some thought. In practical terms, what would actually happen at the parish level? Evidently we must wait for the motu proprio for specifics, but what if some people in a parish want the Tridentine Mass but the priest doesn't want to celebrate it? I could see that happening.
What is the priest wants to celebrate the Tridentine Mass but the people don't want it? I suppose it would be somewhat similar to situations where parishes have Mass in different languages.
At any rate, it will require some logistics to get it all together.

Bob Diorio

Weren't "The Reproaches" used just this past Good Friday in St. Peter's? They are part of the Novus Ordo text as well.

Sr. Lorraine

Fr John's question does provoke some thought. In practical terms, what would actually happen at the parish level? Evidently we must wait for the motu proprio for specifics, but what if some people in a parish want the Tridentine Mass but the priest doesn't want to celebrate it? I could see that happening.
What if the priest wants to celebrate the Tridentine Mass but the people don't want it? I suppose it would be somewhat similar to situations where parishes have Mass in different languages.
At any rate, it will require some logistics to get it all together.
Would the pre-Vatican II rules for receiving Communion apply? (fast from midnight)? or would the Tridentine Mass be celebrated with current rules on Communion?
What about the Holy Week liturgies? Pius XII changed some of those rules, so would those rules be followed or previous ones? Or would the Vatican just issue a whole new set of rules?

ContraMundum

Part of the problem is that the Tridentine and Novus Ordo--if they do come to exist concurrently--will be to get clear on exactly whether or not the Novus ordo and the Tridentine will be considered different rites in the strict sense. The "Tridentine rite" was simply the most popular form of celebrating Mass according to the Latin rite before the Council, but there were various other "rites" (the Dominican, Benedictine, etc.) that were celebrated right alongside it, without truly forming other rites strictly speaking (like the Gallican, the Ambrosian, etc.).

So, my question is, how is it going to be? Will the coexistence of Tridentine and Novus ordo be like the coexistence of Tridentine with Ambrosian? Or like the coexistence of the Tridentine alongside the Dominican? In the latter case, the same calendar was observed (with the exception of special Dominican feasts added for the Dominicans).

If they really are going to be different rites, then there is no problem: let them have different calendars, different readings, etc. (Easter would always coincide anyway, given Western means of reckoning the date.) The only problem I see is if they would both be considered sharers in the same rite--for in that case different dates, different Mass readings, etc., would indeed make things weird.

Jason

He appeals to the longstanding tradition of the Church that old rites cannot be banned out of hand.

While I support the Tridentine Mass, I've never been completely convinced of this. What about the Liturgies of the early Church? If we find an order of Mass from the second or third century, should Priests be able to use it when they want to? What if a Priest wants to use a Roman Missal from before 1962? From before Trent?

Jordan Potter

Father John asked, "Am I the only one who sees a problem with two concurrently existing rites in the Latin Church?"

Apart from the 1962 Missal, there is also an Ambrosian Rite and a Dominican Rite, variations of the Latin Rite. Also, in England there is, or was, the Sarum Rite, though it is rarely ever offered any more. In the Middle Ages, within the Latin Rite there were several local variations, and yet the Church's unity was not adversely affected by that liturgical diversity. Why, then, should two forms of the Latin Rite necessarily cause problems for the Church's unity?

After the Council of Trent, the Latin liturgy became standardised, and the older well-established variations began to fade away. Now it is assumed that a rite should be uniform, and it is hard to conceive of liturgical diversity within a single rite. Yet such was the Church's experience in the past, and it can be such again.

Patrick asked, "Is it anti-Semitic to pray for the conversion of the Jews?"

No, not at all (quite the contrary in fact), but we should realise that a lot of Jews, and others, think so.

Liam

Sr Lorraine

The MP concerns only use of the 1962 Missal, so it would reflect, at most, the 3-hour communion fast and the reforms of the Holy Week liturgies by Pius XII and John XXIII (and also the revision of the Canon by the latter to include St Joseph). There are those who may not be happy about that (they might prefer the 1947 Missal, for example), but they are at the fringes and it's not on the table, as it were.

That said, it's going to be hard to imagine there will be many parishes where the 1962 Missal would be used for Holy Thursday, Good Friday, or Easter Vigil, since those liturgies in both Missals are designed to be the only liturgies celebrated for a parish, et cet. You'd have to have a significant majority parishioner preference for the 1962 Missal to opt for its use in those liturgies without alienating your parish.

Zadok the Roman

The Communion Fast is a matter of Canon Law, rather than liturgical rubrics. Therefore, one can follow the one hour Communion Fast of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, even when attending a mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.

David J. White

I have known parishes that have an indult traditional Mass, and each liturgy does indeed follow its own separate calendar. For example, the pre-Lenten Septuagesima period in the old calendar was abolished in the Novus Ordo, where the three Sundays before Ash Wednesday are now just part of "Ordinary Time" and thus celebrated in green. I have seen sacristans preparing the sanctuary for the traditional Mass, taking down the green tabernacle veil from the morning's Novus Ordo Mass, and putting on a violet one for the afternoon's traditional Mass (on, say, what is Septuagesima Sunday in the old calendar, where violet vestments are worn).

In the old Missal there are optional Masses that can be said for a variety of general intentions and occasions -- e.g., "Mass of a Virgin not a Martyr", etc. I don't think there is any reason why a priest celebrating the traditional Mass could not say a Mass on the feast of, say, St. Pio, using the appropriate general Mass and plugging in St. Pio's name as appropriate.

As for liturgical division, we crossed that bridge a long time ago. I remember in the early 70s in my parish, one of the Sunday morning Masses was a so-called "contemporary Mass" (guitars, etc). It was celebrated in a different physical location -- in the parish hall -- and was actually at the same time as one of the regular Sunday Masses in church. So, in essence, it was a separate, parallel liturgical community. If that's OK for guitars and tambourines, it should be OK for Latin and Gregorian Chant as well.

Shawn

Indeed, some have already raised the issue of the other Western rites. What is probably even more telling are the "uses". So for example, in pre-reformation England, the Sarum or Salisbury use (a use is a variant of a rite, not a rite proper, unlike the Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Premonastratensian, Carthusian, Cistercian, Bragan, and so forth) sat besides other variants of the Roman rite, such as those of Hereford and York.

Our issue is that we particularly tend to view unity today (and since Trent really) in the context of a single expression of a rite -- which is ironic since indeed, the plethora of options can create wide differences from parish to parish.

We need to rediscover the concept of legitimate (a key word) liturgical diversity; or as Pope John Paul II put it, of that unity in diversity.

Shawn

Regarding two other questions, that of calendars.

In a perfect world, indeed, the calendars would match up. Perhaps at some point they will again, but we've inherited an imperfect situation, and so we can't expect perfect norms at this time.

One thing that we should recall is to consider the Christian East. I have seen, for example Ukrainian Catholic parishes that use both the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian. Here, far form being different feasts, Lent and Easter won't even necessarily coincide in the one and the same parish. Not an ideal model of course, but certainly something to keep in mind when one faces imperfect scenarios, and considers precedents already existing in the Church. We should keep in mind as well that if unity is a goal, it might cause more disunity to banish one than to keep both.

Regarding Jason's question, there is a difference between a rite that became defunct some while ago and were unused for some great period of time, and long-standing rites that saw continuous use.

In regard the classical, here we have a rite that was used for over 1600 years, suddenly and abruptly cut off. This is much different than taking a liturgical rite that disppeared from use a long while ago, such as the early Gallican rite for example.

Joseph R. Wilson

I recently heard a priest leave out "for fear of the Jews" when reading the Gospel. This was meant as an attempt to avoid offending Jews or contributing to some latent hatred of Jews(?) I was offended.

In addition to the fact that the deleted phrase need not be more offensive to present-day Jews than it is to the rest of us sinners when taken in context, I believe that it is not licit for a priest to do this. Can someone with some expertise help me with this?

God save us from the over-application of the historical critical method that apparently provides cover for such selective picking and choosing of reading from the Lectionary. Long live Pope Benedict XVI, and let's have some more attention paid to Method C. Bring on the motu proprio, and let's have some teaching on the fact that the Catholic Church is not now, and never was anti-Semitic.

Jordan Potter

"In addition to the fact that the deleted phrase need not be more offensive to present-day Jews than it is to the rest of us sinners when taken in context, I believe that it is not licit for a priest to do this. Can someone with some expertise help me with this?"

Yes, this passage from Redemptionis Sacramentum shows that what your priest did is absolutely forbidden and displays infidelity to Jesus:

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.[23] Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,[24] it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,[25] so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.[26]

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.[27] On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,[28] and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,[29] but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.[30] The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.[31]

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.[32]

Jeff

I too go to a Tridentine Mass weekly at a church where many of the masses are Novus Ordo. And we end up with different days for Epiphany or Corpus Christi.

No one is particularly confused...there is simply no problem. And there is no reason why there should be any real difficulties. People who don't like the old liturgy will learn to avoid it most of the time--just as I learned to avoid folk masses most of the time.

As for the "anti-Semitic" stuff: "perfidious Jews" was taken out of the missal by Blessed John the Twenty-Third. It isn't IN the '62 Missal. Just google "perfidious Jews Pope John" and you'll come up with lots of references...or just check your missal. You HAVE one by now...don't you? ;-)

So, it must be the prayer for the Jews WITHOUT the word 'perfidious', which was taken out in 1960. This is how it runs in the '62 Missal:

Let us pray also for the Jews, that our Lord and God may take away the veil from their hearts, so that they, too, may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. V. Let us kneel. R. Arise.

Almighty eternal God, who repellest not even the Jews from Thy mercy, hearken to our prayers which we make in behalf of the blindness of that people, that, recognizing the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same. All R. Amen.

I don't see any problem with that. But of course, the people who can't stomach the "anti-semitism" of the Gospels being on the wide screen won't be happy. Still, the reproaches, as have been pointed out, are still in the Good Friday liturgy.

caesium

Fr John's "divisive" argument is crazy. I was in the US recently and what is extraordinary is that many Catholic parishes are now divided BY the Novus Ordo (Spanish and English). If you had one Latin Mass for the entire Catholic community in parish it would make sense for everybody.

Joseph R. Wilson

Thanks, Jordan, for the reference and quote..

Fr. John

Caesium, I don't regard my argument as "crazy." The fact that we in the US are divided by Spanish and English liturgies does not mean that we will not be further divided by a widespread Tridentine/Pauline Mass division.

As for those above who point out, correctly, that the West has had various rites of the Mass exist concurrently: you are correct. However, these ritual differences occurred either in different ecclesiastical provinces or in particular religious communities. Further, the differences between rites, for example the Tridentine, Dominican, and Carmelite, are minimal when compared to the stark differences between the Tridentine and Pauline Masses. Having two very divergent rites and calendars in a single parish would be confusing at best. Catechesis of the young would be much more challenging than it is presently. Someone above suggested that I would favor the withrawal of the permission for the indult. That is not the case. My ideal solution would be for the Vatican to reinstate a modified Tridentine rite - modified to reflect the best of the experience with the Pauline rite. This would, if done well, ensure the organic continuity with the past, while prudentiallly incorporating the best post-conciliar developments, such as permission to use the vernacular, incorporation of saints newly added to the calendar and removal of some saints of the traditional calendar, simplification of the ranks of liturgical days, and reduction of some redundant gestures that exist in the 1962 rite (multiple signs of the cross, for example).

kentuckyliz

I don't care for the Tridentine Mass but don't object to it being available for those who want it, and I don't object to individual priests being given the freedom to choose to offer it if they want to. The Tridentine Mass is just in the cities. I live in mission territory and the priests cover multiple parishes in a big territory and they have their hands full enough. I can't see the bishop adding Tridentine Masses to their regular duties of the Paul VI Mass, or lacking episcopal command, them voluntarily offering more of a Mass schedule than they already do. God bless our mission priests.

I like Latin propers mixed with the vernacular, ad orientam, communion on the tongue, chant, altar rails, verticality, transcendence. The Paul VI Mass can be celebrated well and meaningfully. I don't like being so cut off from the action at the altar in the liturgy of the eucharist with the schola singing God knows what entirely different than what's going on. No wonder people prayed Rosaries during Mass, they had to occupy themselves somehow. I just don't care for it myself.

In fact, I think my friend's Antiochian Orthodox church really knows how to do a beautiful liturgy in a beautiful space. There's a lot of former Catholics there, who bypassed the Indult Tridentine Mass in town entirely. You don't miss out on any of the prayers! It's in English, and you hear the priest, and there are frequent responses and participation. (That city is 2 1/2 hours away from me and I wouldn't become Orthodox anyway, because I don't believe in it.)

But issue the motu already, B16, so the radtrads will see that it will not result in instant heaven on earth, and they'll realize that they have to get along with all their brothers and sisters anyway. There's a pride issue in a lot of them, thinking they're better than the rest of us.

Offer a diversity of liturgy based on on area's people and their wishes, and the resources available, sure! I have no problem with Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese language Masses and parishes. Heck, in former times, there were de facto Irish, Italian, and Polish parishes. It should be accommodated to prevent schism, as with the Polish National Catholic Church parishes I saw in Chicago.

I just don't want a 1962 Mass universally inflicted on me just like the radtrads don't like the Paul VI Mass being universally inflicted on them.

People have different tastes and resonances, why not let them worship according to what resonates with them? And not judge others who resonate differently?

Jordan Potter

"My ideal solution would be for the Vatican to reinstate a modified Tridentine rite - modified to reflect the best of the experience with the Pauline rite. This would, if done well, ensure the organic continuity with the past, while prudentiallly incorporating the best post-conciliar developments, such as permission to use the vernacular, incorporation of saints newly added to the calendar and removal of some saints of the traditional calendar, simplification of the ranks of liturgical days, and reduction of some redundant gestures that exist in the 1962 rite (multiple signs of the cross, for example)."

Actually, Father, I quite agree with you that this would probably be the best possible solution for the entire Latin Church. Of course, given our track record with liturgical reform since the late 1960s, I can't be sanguine about the chances of such a reform being done right . . . but a guy can dream, can't he?

Rose

I second Jordan Potter's comments with regard to Fr. John's suggestion. Now we can understand why the Motu Proprio is taking so long to appear; the Holy Father has many many things to consider. Let's just trust that God will guide Pope Benedict in this matter as in all other matters.

dymphna

Fr. John, with all due respect, the church has always has more than one rite and we do now. Plus, Mass is broken down into groups now. The Hispanics go to their Mass and the Anglos wait in the parking lot rather than mix. The Koreans and Vietnamese have their own Mass and in my diocese, their own parishes. We have the folk music Mass for the Baby Boomers, the rock music teen Mass, the Charismatic Mass for the folks who like to get emotional in public, we have Gospel Masses, Polish Mass, Jazz Mass and for the Haitians, a Creole Mass so why not a regular Tridentine? Why in Heaven's name why not? Besides if the purpose of the Mass is to merely bring us togehter then we all might as well stay home because in the real world we obviously aren't together.

Fr. John

Dymphna, the Church has always had multiple rites, but not in the same parish at the same time. The examples of fracturing within the Church that you cite are certainly there - but that doesn't mean that they should exist. And I never said that "the purpose of the Mass is to merely bring us together." I did say that the Mass brings us together: the Church is that sacred society that is gathered in prayer around the altar, whose worship on earth is a foretaste of the worship of heaven. Further fragmentation of the Body of Christ is to be deplored, whether that is based on ethnicity, region, language, or on the basis of taste (or lack thereof) in music and liturgical style.

Shawn

Fr. John,

Yet in the case, for example of the Salisbury use in pre-reformation England, it apparently found itself in use even outside the diocese of Salisbury. That would thus put it side by side with either the Roman rite, or potentially even another use of the Roman rite, let alone the rites of the religious orders.

Moreover, I think in our own day we should consider that fact that we also find overlap in particular geographical areas, such as the fact there will be a Latin rite bishop and the Eastern Catholic archbishop in a particular area with their own, very different rites. Thus you will also find parishes with varying rites in the same area. It is also common to find that many Eastern Catholics will find a home in a Latin rite parish, at least for a time.

One should also keep in mind that some of the rites of the orders you mentioned were actually more varied from the Roman rite than they are now. For example, the Cistercian rite had some major "Romanizing" tendencies applied after Trent, in 1647 by the then General of the Order. A more modern example would be the 1965 Dominican Missal whose text remained substantively the same, but the rubrics where substantially changed to match the Roman rubrics of that time.

The common root is still visible of course.

This again though is part of that tendency toward an idealized idea of the primacy of the Roman rite (and I say this as one who loves and respects and treasures the Roman rite!) rooted in an understandable love for the Vicar of Christ. I think this same tendency can colour the question today.

Given the present day scenario where rites will share space in the same geographical area and even parish, given that same reality in the past, and then given our present context today where one rite can vary widely simply by employing the various options in the Missal, it really seems to not be an issue of unity unless we try to bring that aspect to it.

The issue of unity rather comes down to matters of doctrine. Through the legitimate liturgical diversity that has characterized the Church's historical liturgical forms, through their variances the same Faith has been found to be expressed through those liturgical texts and ceremonies.

Charles A.

re: Calendar

I agree that the calendars should be uniform. The Novus Ordo calendar should be 'reformed' to be in synch with the Traditional calendar.

As another poster pointed out, the use of the Commons ALWAYS allowed the celebration of a Saint who may have not been in the Calendar (but was in the Martyrology). If a recently canonized saint coincides with one in the Trad. calendar, why not just make each an option? (This is done in several places in the NO calendar.)

Dr Robert Brown

1. I recommend that Fr John read Cardinal Ratzinger's Memoirs as well as The Spirit of the Liturgy. Also Klaus Gamber's Reform of the Liturgy, with a preface by Cardinal Ratzinger.

2. Anyone concerned about unity versus division needs to read John XXIII's Veterum Sapienta--the great expression of the universality of the Church is Latin.

http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

3. As someone noted, there are already de facto different rites in the same parish. One priest will say "He gave it to His disciples", another will say "friends". And there are hundreds of like examples.

4. Where are successes of the Post Vat II liturgical changes? Vocations to the priesthood and religious life have dried up and mass attendance has collapsed in the West. Marriage? It's not uncommon to encounter Catholics in their second marriage. Abortion? Rhode Island, which has the highest percentage of Catholics, also has the high percentage those who are pro-abortion.

Contraception? Let's not waste time.

Let's face it: The post Vat II liturgical changes have proven to be a pastoral flop.

Tom K.

Secondly, the citation of the "wag" who provided the top-10 list.

I was cited by John Allen as a "wag on the Internet" back in Ought-Five. Maybe he just likes the word.

Marc

Fr. John,
>not in the same parish at the same time. <

Our parish St. Margaret Mary's in Oakland
offers both the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo Mass (Latin and English) at the same parish. We are adjusting as a community in faith just fine 'because' we have outstanding holy priests who assist each other and do not divide us. This is the required link.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)