Merry Christmas!

From me and mine to you and yours...

Have a very Blessed and Merry Christmas!


The Home Altar

The Tree



Christmas Eve Dinner


May your home be filled with joy and love, peace and good cheer,
good friends, good food, and fine red wine!

Live as a Traditional Catholic for just one month, and you will never want to live any other way!

Are tradtional Catholics opposed to liturgical reform?

Are traditional Catholics opposed to liturgical reform?

Absolutely not.

In fact, traditional Catholics accept and embrace liturgical reforms to a much greater degree and with much more enthusiasm than most of those who were involved in fashioning the new order of the Mass. As Antoine Dumas, O.S.B. pointed out in his short essay, The Orations of the New Roman Missal, there was particular attention paid by the revisers in restoring the ancient prayers to their original form, free of the accretions that were added over the years. Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the new order of the Mass wrote, “texts are to revised according to the originals, restoring fullness of meaning, even theological meaning, that has sometimes been altered” (La Riforma Liturgica: 1948-1975, 393).

There was much interest, indeed an obsession, among the members of the Concilium that fashioned the new order of the Mass, and innovators ever since, to restore the Mass to its “ancient” form. Of course, the innovators were the only people who knew what this “ancient” form might be. This archeologsim essentially denies the legitimacy of all liturgical developments, the mind of the Church throughout the ages, between today and some distant, pristine past. In reality, the revisers rejected all liturgical development and reform prior to their own.

Traditional Catholics on the other hand are aware of the reality of liturgical reform simply because traditional Catholics focus on the whole of Holy Mother Church’s history, not just some distant biblical past as interpreted by a 1960’s and 1970’s mentality. The Church is a two thousand-year-old institution in the eyes of a traditional Catholic. In the eyes of the progressive liberal Catholic or neo-con Catholic, the Church’s history goes back to 1964 when finally enlightened modern men started to see the early Church for what it really was. The arrogance of the latter position is obvious. The humility of the former is striking.

Traditional Catholicism accepts that the Mass is received, and that expressions of prior generations have merit and meaning for us today. Traditional Catholicism accepts that the Mass is not something that we fabricate from our own experiences and ideas as though it was simply an expression of our contemporary whims. The Mass is a gift given to us by God, shaped, not by committee or a cabal of liturgists, but by the Holy Ghost over the course of the Church’s history. At the Traditional Latin Mass we assist, assistere, to stand before the mystery.

This is not to say that the usus antiquior is devoid of human experience. Rather, encapsulated in the usus antiquior are all the prayers and offerings and sufferings and oblations and adorations of all those who have come before us, and indeed of those of the saints living in Heaven. These are not mere “accretions” or childish legends, but the mystical presence of the hopes and aspirations of the poor and the rich, the strong and the weak, the triumphant and the defeated, the educated and the ignorant from every generation and locale of Christ's Church. It contains within its vast treasury memories of the prayers of sinners longing for forgiveness, of saints in ecstasy before the luminous mystery of faith, and the subjection of kings along side the lifting up of paupers to glory. The Holy Ghost in the course of these long years formed all these things and wove them into the fabric of the revealed words of institution, into the revealed and given words of thanksgiving, adoration, intercession, and reparation in which we participate. The university professor and the most ignorant of peasants together reflected on the dove of Saint Scholastica, the voyage of Saint Raymond, and the miraculous choice of Saint Peter Chrysologus, and neither felt too high or too low, too stupid or too smart to draw edification. It is the words of faith for all people percisely because it comes from Heaven and lifts us up beyond ourselves, beyond the present human condition.

One would have to be quite simple to believe that the Mass according to the liturgical books of 1962 is identical to the Mass sung by St. Peter in the Upper Room on that first great Pentecost, but the traditional Catholic certianly recognizes a real continuity. No traditional Catholic would seriously think we should continue to offer prayers for the Holy Roman Emperor, though past generations doing so is something we can identify as rightly logical. The Mass has changed and developed, it has done so out of necessity, and it has always developed in continuity, gradually and logically. It will, no doubt, continue to change according to the movement of the Holy Ghost in order to work for the salvation of souls. The traditional Catholic welcomes these organic and gradual changes that have always taken place in continuity with Tradition.

The crucial question is whether or not the traditional Catholic is opposed to the “reforms” that took place after the Second Vatican Council? For the most part, the answer would have to be “yes”. These changes were not legitimate at all. What happened after the council was a rupture with everything that came before. There was no organic or gradual change, but a near total break with what came before. These are easily perceived in externals, such as language and posture and some obvious changes to the “blocking” of the Mass. These are the surface issues, though.

There are more fundamental problems inherent in the new order of the Mass that far outweigh language or posture. There were changes, manipulations, rearranging of the actual prayers of the Mass. I’m not referring to translation. The ancient Latin prayers were manipulated, changed and rearranged in such a way that the very logic, the theological and philosophical presupposition inherent to the prayers, was altered, even radically in some cases. As experience demonstrates, this change in focus and logic has proven to be a disastrous implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. That the Second Vatican Council called for certain reforms is both understandable and acceptable, but what followed was not in accord with organic liturgical development, the instructions and suggestions contained in Sacrosanctum Concilium, or in accord with Tradition.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that in order for Holy Mother Church to start down the road of legitimate liturgical reform according to Sacrosanctum Concilium, the work of the Concilium and the new order of the Mass need be rejected. The Church must start anew, in a fashion that accords with the historical nature of organic development. The new order of the Mass is, simply, too far off the rails to act as a starting point. The only starting point that is adequate will have to be the starting point that the Second Vatican Council Fathers had in mind when they drafted Sacrosanctum Concilium, that is, the Traditional Latin Mass.

This is not to say that the Ordinary Form should be shut down immediately. To do so would, no doubt, cause great harm to souls. Once in the history of the Church was an entire people's expression of worship ripped out from under them, and the effects of that are still painfully evident. Rather, the traditional Catholic realizes that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, that to which he is so attached, must now become the treasury of all future liturgical reforms. It is my hope, at least, that the irresistible pull of the Extraordinary Form will completely reshape the Ordinary Form over time to the point that the Ordinary Form will in all practicality be identical to the usus antiquior. But this is as much up to the traditional Catholic as it is to our prelates. Indeed, more so the traditional Catholic, as our prelates are still too historically conditioned in this day and age to publicly concede the inauthentic nature of the post-Vatican II reforms. God has entrusted us, the traditonal Catholics, with this treasury for liturgical reform for future generations.

So, far from being opposed to liturgical reform, the traditional Catholic finds himself the instrument of the Holy Ghost to bring about liturgical reform.