A timely sermon by Fr. Cooper, SSPX

Tradnews Roundup

St. Theodora Guérin would recognize this.

St. Theodora Guérin would not recognize this nonsense.

*Traditional Latin Mass in honor of St. Theodora Guérin in South Bend, IN. My money is on that this is NOT how the Sisters of Providence down at St. Mary of the Woods will be celebrating the feast day of their foundress. Now, before you radtrads complain about a Traditional Latin Mass Community honoring a "new saint", remember that St. Mother Theodore Guérin was a traditional Catholic. She loved the Traditional Latin Mass and suffered dearly to convert the heathen to Catholicism. That this has been entirely lost on the aging and dying out religious order she founded in Indiana, due to their wholehearted acceptance of Modernism in the wake of Vatican II, is utterly beside the point. St. Theodora Guérin would be right at home among the folks up in South Bend and with the FSSP priest who will offer that Mass; more so than she would be down at St. Mary of the Woods with the weird inclusive language novus ordo and wicca stuff that goes on there. In fact, I think Mother Theodora would run screaming from those gals.

*The Remnant Newspaper Pilgrimage to Rome, and an historical Traditional Latin Mass in the works. I essentially agree with Mr. Matt. However, that's only because we traditionalists need to constantly advance Tradition. Of course, this needs to be coupled with true holiness! We traditionalists need to excel in prayer, sacrifice and progress in virtue. Which brings us the question...

*Is the pope snubbing traditionalists? I believe that Benedict XVI is thoroughly dejected by traditionalists in general, but not for anything traditionalists have done. We, after all, haven't changed in the least. The reasons are, for the most part, due to pope's own shortsightedness the failure of his scheme in regard the SSPX. It is clear that he had hoped to draw traditionalists into accepting the latest interpretation and swallow the Vatican II pill. The SSPX refused, of course, and the pope has given up on the whole project. This is demonstrated by his appointment of Müller to the CDF. I honestly suspect that if he had to do it over again, knowing what he knows now, the Holy Father would not not give us Summorum Pontificum. I, however, am one trad who will not look a gift-horse in the mouth.

*Müller continues to unjustly (and quite ignorantly) attack the SSPX. The pope has abandoned all pretense to be "traditional" with the appointment of this ecclesiastically worthless windbag. There's simply no way to construe this present pontificate as traditional. It is clear that Müller will continue to steer the Vatican in the liberal direction.

*Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais confirms that the pope will not brook the SSPX's criticisms of the Second Vatican Council... however, he doesn't seem to mind a plethora of other "Catholics" who reject every other council that came before that.


*American Ordinariate for the "Anglican Use" (read, novus ordo with smells and bells and former Episcopalians in tow), outlaws the Traditional Latin Mass, says it is not part of their "Anglican patrimony".

Young people are attracted to the Traditional Latin Mass.

*First Wedding according to the old liturgical books in Denmark in decades. There are glimmers of hope, and plenty of victories for Tradition. For example, the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism is attracting youth, who see in it the meat and potatoes being denied them in the novus ordo mainstream. But the vindication of Tradition and the true restoration aren't going to happen over night. Someone recently complained to me that the Modernist changes of the 20th century were already too entrenched, that there was nothing we could do now, and we might as well give up. The first thought that came to me was, what do you expect? Do you really think we are suffering as much for the true faith as those who came before us did? Please! Stop acting like a child, I wanted to scream. Nobody promised that the fight for Tradition was going to be a walk in the park, which brings us to...


*"Why don't I have a Traditional Latin Mass at my parish? I asked nicely!" This piece dovetails very nicely with the experiences of many trying to establish a Traditional Latin Mass Community in their diocese or parish. Simply speaking, people often harbor unreasonable expectations. At the same time, if something is earned without blood, sweat and tears, would be cherished as much?

*The Bishops are silent in the face of Melinda Gates' heretical global contraception campaign. Even the secular media is confused as to why Catholic bishops have suddenly fell silent. Granted, this isn't entirely true that the bishops are completely silent. Many bishops have spoken out against support for abortion in the run-up to this year's election. The question is, why, though, have none spoken out against Melinda Gates? Perhaps she's a rich Catholic who has given a lot of money to her parish and diocese? If that's the case, thank God we don't have a church-tax here!

*Speaking of which, in Germany, no money, no sacraments. It doesn't matter if you are a pagan or a heretic or married to your brother. All that matters is that you have the coin. I wonder if Müller would charge his Protestant brothers and sisters to share some ecumenical prayers with him?

*How does the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" stack up against the Anti-Modernist Oath? Traditionalists were fools to think that they had an ally in this present pope. As an SSPX friend pointed out to me, the Holy Father wasn't addressing liberals as rupturists. He doesn't care about the liberals. He was addressing the SSPX as the rupturists. The SSPX is the only group being disciplined (persecuted?) in the name of the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity".

*Vatican Press Office just can't get anything right. This isn't a matter of good or bad strategy. This is a matter of muddled thinking that comes from a rejection of logic. That is a contagion that runs rampant in the Vatican halls.

*Cardinal Dolan's "civility" is the humiliation of the Church. Can we please get a little less "civility" and bit more decorum from this particular prince of the Church? What's he going to do? Crack jokes to make us all feel better as we are being herded into box cars on the way to concentration camps?

*France to get rid of "father" and "mother". The Eldest Daughter of the Church just ran off with her gay lover. The western world is a mess. It is interesting that the socialists in France haven't made any remarkable headway on the economic situation plaguing all of Europe. They have, however, made remarkable progress in advancing anti-family and anti-Catholic social engineering. Two of the greatest enemies of socialism, which is the secular and economic arm of Satanism, is the Traditional Catholic faith and the family.

*NY public schools dispense morning after, abortion pills without parental consent. This is rather shocking, and I'm sure that there are a good number of parents in New York who are rightly upset. However, the State apparatus is able to advance these measures because, by and large, they have been allowed to get away with it. I'm sure too many of those parents don't give a damn anyway. This is just another sign of our collapsing western culture, which is due, of course, to the collapse of the Church Militant under the weight of Vatican II.

*Polls indicate that the Catholic vote is swaying toward that little Antichrist in the White House, Obama. Do Catholics even care about the faith behind the label they give themselves? No. I'm sure many of these Catholics just say "Catholic" because they feel they really ought to say something when asked. Catholicism for them is just something they used to do when they were kids. There are, however, other Catholics who do go to church, who do consider themselves serious in their religious convictions. The problem is, is that these Catholics' religious convictions aren't Catholic! These people are really Protestants, and since the liturgy they attend every week is essentially a Protestant service (albeit with a licit and valid sacrament... which makes it worse, in my opinion), their Protestant religious convictions go on unchallenged.

*Will this presidential election separate the faithful Catholics from the phony "Catholics"?

Liturgy: Why We Worship

One of the things I do every morning as I drink my glass of iced tea (coffee for me), I read the news release from the Vatican.  I think that there is some good information in there and it keeps me abreast of what is going on in the mainstream Church.  As I was reading this morning, I came across a news brief which I would like to share.  I'm going to break it down Fr. Z style (this time. my responses will be in red):

The liturgy as a school of prayer, as a "special place in which God addresses each one of us ... and awaits our response", was the theme of Benedict XVI's catechesis during his general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square.
The Pope explained how, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "we read that the word 'liturgy' originally meant a 'service in the name of/on behalf of the people'. If Christian theology took this word from the Greek, clearly it did so thinking of the new People of God, born of Christ Who opened His arms on the Cross to unite mankind in the one peace of God; 'service in the name of the people', a people which exists not of itself but which has come into being thanks to the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ". [I think this is a key point.  There is something important about understanding that the Mass and Eucharist are not about the individual first, but rather it is about the faithful coming together to worship.  That is what the Holy Father is saying.]
"The Catechism also states that in Christian tradition, the word 'liturgy' means the participation of the People of God in the work of God". In this context Pope Benedict recalled how the document on the liturgy had been the first fruit of Vatican Council II. "By beginning with the issue of liturgy, light was very clearly thrown on the primacy of God, on His absolute precedence. ... Where the gaze on God is not decisive, everything becomes disoriented. The fundamental criterion for the liturgy is that it should be oriented towards God, in order to ensure we participate in His work. [A misconception which came about after Vatican Council II is being corrected.  The act of worshipping should be directed at God, the Father 100% of the time.  Our participation in the liturgy is not based on how much we do, but on how well we do it.]
"Yet, we might ask ourselves", the Holy Father added, "what is this work of God in which we are called to participate? ... And what makes the Mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, Who brought salvation, real for me today? The answer is this: the action of Christ through the Church and the liturgy; in particular the Sacrament of the Eucharist which causes the sacrificial offer of the Son of God Who redeemed us to be present; the Sacrament of Penance in which we pass from the death induced by sin to new life; and the other Sacraments which sanctify us". [Get that, sacrifice and sanctification]
Quoting again from the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Pope affirmed that "a sacramental celebration is a meeting of God's children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words'. Thus", he explained, "the first requirement for a good liturgical celebration is that it be prayer and dialogue with God, first listening then responding. ... Sacred liturgy offers us the words, it is up to us to enter into their meaning, absorb them, harmonise ourselves with them. ... One fundamental and primordial element of dialogue with God in the liturgy is concordance between what we say with our mouths and what we carry in our hearts", he said.  [Clearly, the Holy Father is trying to shift the meaning of active participation to actual participation.  We don't have to be doing something or even saying something all the time in order to fully participate.  We can internalize the matter and we can actually participate without opening our mouths or eyes one time during the Holy Sacrifice.  While we can and it is laudable that we do, at times, it is not a lessening of our participation if we don't, so long as we orient our hearts, our minds and our souls to the adoration, supplication and worship of God, the Father at Holy Mass.] 
The Pope then referred to a particular moment in which the liturgy calls upon us and helps us to find such concordance: the celebrant's invitation before the Eucharistic prayer: "sursum corda", meaning "let us lift up our hearts"; lift them up, that is, "out of the mire of our concerns and desires, our worries and our distraction. Our hearts, the most intimate part of us, must open meekly to the Word of God and join the prayer of the Church, in order to be oriented towards God by the very words we hear and pronounce".
"We celebrate and experience the liturgy well", the Pope concluded, "only if we maintain an attitude of prayer, uniting ourselves to the mystery of Christ and to His dialogue of a Son with His Father. God Himself teaches us to pray. ... He has given us the right words with which to address Him, words we find in the Psalter, in the great prayers of sacred liturgy and in the Eucharistic celebration itself. Let us pray to the Lord that we may become increasingly aware of the fact that the liturgy is the action of God and of man; a prayer that arises from the Holy Spirit and from us; entirely addressed to the Father in union with the Son of God made man". [Our dialogue is internal.  We must pray and we must unite our souls, our hearts, and our minds to God the Father, in Christ the Son, through the Holy Spirit.  That is the purpose of the Mass.  The Mass is a vehicle to bring us the Sacrament.  It is the means by which we worship as Christians.  It is the authentic and proper way for all Christians to commune with God.  But in order to do this we must pray.  We must understand that prayer is threefold.  It's object must be worthy of God.  It must include faith which includes implicit trust in God.  And it demands our attention.  We must be attentive to what we are doing.  If one of these things is lost, the prayer is not fulfilled.  Christ taught us to pray.  He furthered this by giving us the Mass.  And it is through understanding the end as well as the means that we can truly understand what is proper in the liturgy.]
Following the catechesis the Holy Father addressed greetings to, among others, faithful from Latin America, including a group of Chilean parliamentarians whom he reminded of Catholic politicians' duty "generously to seek the common good of all citizens, in a manner coherent with the convictions held by the children of the Church".

As I was looking at this article, I realized that the act of worshipping is not just an outward action, but it is an internalization of what God the Father created us for.  We were created to worship Him Who Is.  When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, man lost that freedom to worship Him.  As God expelled them from the Garden, He promised Adam and Eve that He would restore that freedom.  We find that freedom in the Sacrifice on Calvary.  Through the re-presentation of Christ's death in an unbloody way, we gain that freedom that was lost.  If our end on Earth is to worship God the Father, then it is fulfilled in the manner in which He gave us, the Holy Mass.

TradNews Roundup

*Fr. Schmidberger, District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Germany, explains in an interview the current position of the SSPX in relation to Rome, and the unjust conditions that Rome would place on the SSPX for there to be a regularization of the Fraternity.

*Vatican Insider tells us much we already know about the stalled Rome/SSPX negotiations.

*Film about Archbishop Lefebvre to open in France.

*SSPX academy in Syracuse, New York, sets a high standard for education.

*The Revolution that was Vatican II, and the wreckage it left behind.

*Marriage is good for society.

*The Mother Church or Holy Mother the Church?

Frustrated and Tired... thanks Google

The new interface that has been forced on Blogger users is, to say the least, horrible. Many html options have simply been nixed or changed beyond all recognition. I'm particularly frustrated by images, as I can no longer post images at s800.

So... sorry about the reduced image size, and all the thousands of bugs they still haven't worked out of this new interface.

Word Press is still worse, though, so I doubt I will be moving any time soon.

Feckless Childishness from Internet Traditionalists

A question recently posed to Cardinal Dolan demonstrates the spinelessness of the politically correct Left: "What do we do when our church leaders harbor hatred for homosexuals?"

Cardinal Dolan didn't do a very good job answering the question because he immediately agreed with the unspoken premise at the root of the question: those who hold that the homosexual act is intrinsically evil and that same-sex attraction is a grave disorder are hateful people. This is a ridiculous assertion, but it dwells at the heart of all political correctness.

The truth is that we who hold to the Church's ancient teaching that the homosexual act is intrinsically evil and conclude that same sex attraction is a psychological and moral disorder are not "hateful". We simply disagree with those who hold opinions to the contrary. Those who hold opinions to the contrary, rather than argue their point with facts and reason, stoop to the "hatred" canard, ironically demonstrating that is they who are motivated by hatred. Their argument is complaint. Such a tactic is childish and feckless.

Unfortunately this tactic is all too common among even internet traditionalists. I was reminded recently of this sad fact as I became a persona non grata in certain circles due to my position regarding the Dialogue Mass. Finding ourselves in disagreement with others can be a painful reality, especially if we share with those in disagreement common ideals, values, interests and convictions. These disagreements can also be opportunities for the Devil to tear down communities and noble endeavors. All too often grown men and women wallow in prideful childishness rather than engage in fruitful debate for the purpose of discovering truth.

Sure, I'm irritated to be personally pointed out and ostracized for a legitimate and studied opinion. Sometimes that happens, especially when debating liberals. What troubles me more, though, is the childishness that has been displayed by certain individuals who are on the front lines in the battle over Catholic Tradition. As a former paratrooper and infantryman, I can assure you that these are not the kinds of people I would want having my back in a fight.

Too many internet traditionalists lack pliancy of character, which includes but is not limited to a willingness to set aside personal preferences and whims, a desire to be pleasant, and a willingness to listen and allow convictions to be challenged. This isn't spinelessness; rather, it's quite the opposite. It takes courage and intestinal fortitude to challenge our preferences, personal idiosyncrasies, and stubbornly held opinions. Pliancy of character is a willingness to learn from others, and if there are disagreements, to debate them in charity, with an openness to facts, logical argument and the realization that the Self could be in error. We debate to learn, not to prove we are right!

I've been as guilty as any other in this regard, and I pray that God will give me a greater degree of pliancy.

This is important! How can we internet traditionalists criticize the false premises at the heart of political correctness, when we act with the same degree of childish disregard for truth. How can internet traditionalists pretend to herald truth when, after being confronted with disagreement with those who ought to be brothers in a greater common cause, they become spoiled, angry children who hide behind internet anonymity?

Tradition deserves better than this feckless childishness from those who pretend to be its defenders.

St. Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association

I would just like to mention that I've added an excellent blog to the blogroll, St. Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association. Very traditional, very Catholic, very Irish.

Please go and check this blog out if you haven't already done so.

TradNews Roundup

*Abandoned (by the Jesuits) Limerick church bought and to be operated by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

*A Royal Traditional Nuptial Mass.

*Bishop Williamson, F.S.S.P.X., and the Monastery of the Holy Cross of New Freiburg act in defiance to the Society of St. Pius X's Superior General and District Superior of South America, and brings down a heavy condemnation from the Society.

*The Müller disaster.

*Chinese bishop who criticized the Communist regime disappears.

*Archbishop Chaput deals with having the Rigali mess dumped on his lap.

*Are our bishops on the side of Christ and His Church? Most? NO! They will answer for this mess before the Judgement Seat of Christ!

Old Cars and the Church...An Analogy

I know that this isn't a perfect analogy,  but I recently had a friend who said the following:

Perhaps the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are crystallized in the fact that it leads to diffuse blog discussions (like this one) of how to pull it out of the ditch.To which I responded:

I don't think that there is a way to pull it out of the ditch, without totaling it. I think that the only way to save it is to overhaul it.

I liken it this way. Look at the modified street rods that are out there. It would be like taking a '42 Chevy coupe and restoring it to 100% stock body and interior, while souping up the chassis and putting in a Corvette ZR1 engine package.  She'd look cool and have tons of power, but she wouldn't be authentic.  That's what they tried to do with the Novus Ordo in the first place.  And the driver put it into the ditch.

Realistically, there is nothing wrong with putting in a restored 216 inline 6-cylinder which was what was original to the car, it adds stock value and authenticity to the car.  And will fit much better and with no modification.  In other words, if it can be fixed without breaking it, don't break it.

I think that the Church is looking at the Novus Ordo reform of the reform this way.  I think that they want to pull the wreck out of the ditch and reform the car into something that looks like a '42 Chevy, but in actuality is something different.  Why?  Because change is good?  Why not restore the '42 Chevy into an authentic '42 Chevy?  The parts are all there, the restoration won't be any more or less difficult.  And once we have the '42 Chevy with the 216, isn't it going to be easier to drive, less apt to cause problems and keep to the authentic spirit of the car as it originally was?

The TLM was the '42 Chevy in it's original state.
The Novus Ordo was the '42 Chevy modified.
The attempt at the reform of the reform is to pull the car out of the ditch without totaling it.
What ought to happen is to pull the '42 Chevy out of the ditch and restore it to it's original state, as the car ought to be, all original parts. All original specs.  It is authentic and it adds value. And it will run right.

In short...sometimes a reform is good, but a restoration always adds value. I think that the leadership which heads Holy Mother Church could learn something. Just sayin'.

Cairo Embassy Apology Reflects the Hypocrisy of Liberals in Government

Before the embassy was ever attacked, the US embassy in Cairo issued this stunning apology (a pre-apology) for private American citizens who used their freedom of free speech to criticize Islam:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Despite this apology, the embassy was attacked by a mob of angry Muslims anyway.

This is an absolutely stunning apology issued by the Cairo embassy, both for apologizing to those committing acts of indefensible violence, and for its plain dishonesty. Most conservatives are rightfully upset that an apology should be issued to any group perpetuating such acts of violence against an American consulate, no matter the reason, but what isn’t being mentioned by the same conservatives is that our government certainly isn’t in the business of respecting the feelings of religious people. Our government certainly didn’t condemn God being booed at the Democratic National Convention, did it?

It is clear that Obamathink was at play here, wherein Muslims must be treated with kid-gloves, even when they commit reprehensibly uncivil and violent acts in the name of their religion, all in the interests of protecting Muslim “feelings”. Liberals are afraid to hurt the feelings of people who routinely torture and murder others who don’t agree with their religious beliefs? It really defies all common sense. Are we to believe that government liberals are against any and all criticisms of Islam?

What’s more, on the other hand peaceful and civil Catholics, who abide by a moral code that abhors violence, are the constant recipients of barrage after barrage of anti-Catholic bigotry because the same Catholics dare not agree with being forced to pay for another person's artificial contraception and abortions, and refuse to accept the gay "marriage" agenda of the Left.

Our government isn’t interested in the "feelings" of all religious people, because time after time our government scoffs at the Catholic conviction that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, that the homosexual act is intrinsically evil, and that abortion is intrinsically evil. Catholic "feelings" don't even register a feint blimp on the Obamathink radar.

We are living in an upside-down world of one liberal contradiction after another.

Breaking SSPX News: NO DEAL (and those who are saying there will be are being expelled from the Society)

*Bishop Fellay tells Australians that there will be NO DEAL with Pope Benedict XVI.

*Fathers François Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer are being expelled from the Society of St. Pius X.

Happy Birthday Mary!!

Here it is our own Maria Bambina!!!

We will have her grace our dinner table and then we will sing to her!!! The children will get to hold Maria Bmbina and give her a kiss!!!!

Who will stop the Party of Irreligion? Who will save us from the emerging culture?

The Democratic Nation Convention revealed a political Party that has resolutely seized its identity. These Democrats have taken the bull—no, allow me to favor a more accurate animal—the goat by the horns. Everyone walking away from this convention, everyone who watched it on television, and everyone who read the speeches and watched the news clips now know without any doubt everything for which the Democratic Party stands: tax-payer funded abortion on demand, free contraception, socialism, homosexual “marriage”, and anti-religion. In short, modern Democrats have transformed their political Party into the first American Party of Unmitigated, Unadulterated, Evil. This isn’t Mom and Dad’s political Party anymore. It’s no longer the Party of JFK, whose indiscretions, having been overlooked and then embraced, have grown from sexual deviancy into full-fledged Satanism!

Sandra Fluke was paraded forth as an affront to our Blessed Lord and all devout Catholics whom she is trying to make pay for her sexual deviancy.

For three days we heard nothing but diatribes about a woman’s right to have the unborn child in her womb mutilated and murdered.

Speakers lifted government up on high as our only hope against a “rigged” system.

Women paraded about dressed as contraceptive pill dispensers or proudly called themselves “sluts” (irrationally enough, while one of their own complained vehemently at the podium for being called one).

Heretics attacked the Church without mercy while wearing the word “Catholic” on their shirt sleeves.

God was booed.

Never before has a political Party so embraced the most radical elements of social and political thought, be it right or left, than the Democratic Party has embraced radical left-wing ideology, from economics to social issues. The Republican Party is barely able to embrace a Pro-Life position while the Democratic Party enthusiastically embraces abortion on demand from the time of contraception right up to labor. One speaker even suggested that abortion was permissible while the mother was in labor! How is that not outright infanticide? Yet here we have a political Party unabashedly embracing a radical abortion position.

Abortion is only one such issue. The anti-religious sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats at their convention is another, perhaps more troubling, example of how radically left-wing this Party has become. They booed God. They booed God! Such a thing would be inconceivable just twenty years ago. Now the Democrats can do it in the open, on national television, and they won’t really have to worry about losing any of 45% the vote they already have locked up. They know that a significant number of people in the United States at worst for them won’t care, and at best for them probably agree with the sentiment.

Religion is hated in American society, and especially Catholicism. I think this was best summed up by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who said, when challenged by Sean Hannity on the booing of God by the Democrats, that he never understood his Party’s resistance to “spirituality”. Spirituality, Kucinich told Hannity, was a good thing that Democrats ought to embrace “in others”. Religion on the other hand, explained Kucinich, was “something else—religion is like politics”. In other words, the enlightened Democrat ought to be O.K. with a belief in a god, which is “spiritual”, but religion is something that ought not be brooked, like “politics”. Both religion and politics apparently put impositions on people with ethical implications and truth claims. Religion should not be tolerated. A sure sign of imbecility is the presence of religious conviction. Well, let’s be fair. There’s only one kind of religious person most Americans regard as imbecilic, and that would be Christians, and especially devout Catholics. Apparently the willingness to chop off a person’s head exempts those kinds of religious people from attacks from the irreligious.

While the Republican Party is doing its best to explain away and trivialize the religion of its candidate, the Democrats are busy embracing their anti-religion, which begs the question: Where does that leave a quickly shrinking minority of devoutly religious people? At the moment it would appear that Catholics have a voice in the public square. Those heretics who still claim to be Catholic had a loud voice at the DNC, where they were enthusiastically given a stage to attack the Church. However, devout Catholics had no stage to defend the Church and her teachings at the RNC. Cardinal Dolan gave the “benediction” at both conventions, but to what effect? Does his appearance change the minds of most Americans who believe that devoutly religious Christians are a scourge to civilization and a deterrent to progress? The majority of media outlets who refused to cover the benediction at the DNC have made their position known without having to say it.

We are seeing before us an incredible acceleration of the Revolution, wherein traditional religion will be attacked without mercy, the destruction of the family will be completed, and the masses will be lulled into reliance on government instead of their own resources. What the Communists of a by-gone era could not achieve by force of arms is now being accomplished by the Great Society entitlements, social welfare, pornography, the entertainment industry, luxury, and all the other distractions of our modern world, all of which drive man from God, destroy the family, and make us dependent upon the architects of big government.

Obama very well could lose to Romney this November. However, will that actually mark a step forward for devoutly religious Christians? It's doubtful, seeing as how the Republican Party is so hesitant now to back their religious constituents. The GOP vice-presidential candidate has made his name trying to save one of those Great Society programs that was designed to hurt the family. Paul Ryan is no counter-revolutionary, yet he represents the mainstay of the Republican Party. American culture is every day slipping more and more toward the irreligious, and the Neo-conservative establishment of the GOP will go wherever they can find the votes, and if that means abandoning the shrinking minority of the devoutly religious, including the Pro-Life, anti-Gay "marriage" platform... well, we would be fooling ourselves if we thought they would even hesitate.

The Democratic National Convention of 2012 marks the beginning of a new and rather bleak future for the devoutly religious Christian in this country. Today they boo God; tomorrow they close down our churches, jail our prelates, and drive us into hiding. Overly pessimistic? Maybe, but what political Party is going to stand in the way of this stage, perhaps the last stage, of the Revolution? The Republicans? The Republicans are too busy trying to prove how inconsequential religion and the family are to them.

No, dear friends. It is not in politics or these princes that we will hope. However, ironically, it is the devoutly religious who will be the best prepared to endure this bleak future, because we are given a hope that the irreligious will never fathom. Happiness without regard to final causality can be no real happiness, a sham dependent on the fleeting goods of this world, which is shattered by the unavoidable reality of death. Death reveals the lie of the irreligious, and all these many distractions of the modern world are designed to keep men from contemplating the inevitability of death and what a godless ideology means in relation to that great sundering. They will never be truly happy, because no matter how deep they try to bury the inevitability of death, it will always eat away at them. The world being crafted by the irreligious will always be one of doubt and anxiety. Thus, even in the midst of persecution and tribulation, the faith of the devoutly Christian, the religious man, and the peace and joy this faith brings, will always be envied by the irreligious.

TradNews Roundup

*Two upcoming events you should know about.

*Bishop Finn guilty of one misdemeanor count of failure to report suspected child abuse, acquitted on all other counts, and charges against the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph were dismissed. He was sentenced to two years unsupervised probation, which was suspended. The good bishop is free to go, and the media got its circus. (Meanwhile, Cardinal Mahony enjoys his retirement unmolested.)

*Fr. Benedict Groeschel resigns after making controversial remarks about victims of sexual abuse by priests. For the most part, Groeschel simply reiterates the attitude of his generation of prelates who had to find excuses for the disaster that was supposed to be a new Springtime.

*California government is poised to take away the rights of parents to provide psychological healthcare for their children.

*Obama condemns the Russians for doing the right thing (for a change), demonstrating this man's utter disdain for Christ and Christians.

*DNC platform removes the word "God". Catholic religious sister feels more affinity with the godless Democrats than she does with the Catholic Church.

*DNC delegates boo God. Obama intervenes due to the embarrassment, God is put back in despite the delegates clearly voting it down, and then the move is booed by the same delegates. Obama would have been better served by leaving it alone. We now know exactly what kind of people we are dealing with.

*Liberals tweet offensive, obscene and threatening things about Cardinal Dolan's "benediction" at the DNC. These are such loving and tolerant people!

*The politics of God's return.

*Buchanan: God doesn't belong in the perverse Democratic Party platform.

*Socialism was alive and well at the DNC!


*What should we expect from this irreligious American society? How long before we have to go into hiding?

Assessing the Dialogue Mass Part II: The Lack of Historical Precedence for the Dialogue Mass

Assessing the Dialogue Mass: Part II
The lack of historical precedence for the Dialogue Mass.

For we are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry; you are God's building. According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. – 1 Corinthians 3:9-10

In the first part of my response to Mr. Louis J. Tofari’s article, “Liturgical Principles & Notions Concerning the Dialog Mass”, I addressed his insinuation that the Dialogue Mass was the “ideal and best method to attend Mass.” When one achieves a deeper appreciation of what “active participation” entails, it becomes clear that, quite to the contrary, other methods of hearing Mass are more beneficial for those striving to unite themselves more intimately with the mysteries represented in the Mass. Given the practical failures inherent to the Dialogue Mass, it can be concluded that far from being the best method of hearing the Mass, it should, quite to the contrary, be avoided, its implementation discouraged, and where already practiced, the laity should be introduced to better methods of hearing the Mass.

However, just as important as these subjective and practical considerations are, the question of the historical authenticity of the Dialogue Mass is crucial. Mr. Tofari spends so much time spinning an argument for the historical roots of the Dialogue Mass because if it can be proven that the Dialogue Mass is historically how Catholic laity have attended the Mass, then all arguments against the Dialogue Mass based on the subjective and practical are invalid. It is my assertion that the Dialogue Mass has no historical pedigree, and is a novelty of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement. Mr. Tofari adamantly disagrees with my position, and I have read and researched his arguments thoroughly. However, I have come to the conclusion that his historical arguments do not overcome my objections.

The Dialogue Mass does not appear in any official Church documents until 1958 with the instruction, De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, which was issued by the Sacred Congregation for Rites, and approved by Pope Pius XII toward the end of his pontificate. De musica sacra et sacra liturgia serves to provide a detailed explanation of what the Dialogue Mass is and what is allowed and not allowed in regards to it.

As explained in De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, no. 31, a Dialogue Mass consists of the congregation making the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, “thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.” It is important to note that the Dialogue Mass as explained in De musica sacra et sacra liturgia is to take place during a Low Mass, as indicated by the fact that the instructions concerning the Dialogue Mass is presented in the section of the document dedicated to the Low Mass. Thus, according to this document, it would be an abuse for the congregation to attempt a Dialogue Mass outside of this setting. The same document highlights the importance of the congregation singing the liturgical responses and the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei) during a sung Mass. The reason for this is obvious, as the primary form of exterior lay participation, as spelled out in the same document and also very clearly in Pope St. Pius X’s Inter sollicitudines, is to participate in sacred music. It would be both distracting and unbecoming to attempt to say out loud the liturgical responses over and against the choir and congregation. (As an aside, De musica sacra et scra liturgia does not disallow Mass settings that are too complex to allow congregational singing; there is more than one way for the laity to participate in sacred music, but that is a topic for another time.)

De musica sacra et sacra liturgia stipulates four degrees or stages of participation in the Dialogue Mass. The first stage is the congregation making the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest (i.e. Amen, Et cum spiritu tuo, Deo gratias, etc…). The second stage of participation is to say the prayers that according to the rubrics are prayed by the altar boys (i.e. the Confiteor, Domine non sum dingus, etc…). The third degree of participation is to say aloud with the celebrant those prayers that are part of the Ordinary of the Mass (i.e. the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei). The final stage of participation is to recite the Proper of the Mass with the priest (i.e. the Introit, Gradual, Offertory, and Communion verses). No. 32 of this same document also gives the congregation permission to recite, in Latin only, the Pater Noster with the priest.

The Dialogue Mass as described above, however, was simply unknown prior to the advent of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement. There is absolutely no proof that it was practiced anywhere before its widespread use in the context of the Catholic youth movement, which accompanied the Liturgical Movement, and often acted as the Movement’s proving ground for both liturgical and doctrinal innovations. The Dialogue Mass supplemented other novelties such as the versus populum posture of the priest, Mass “in the round”, and the use of various unapproved Prefaces (many of which were rife with doctrinal errors).

De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, rather than explaining a long established custom with a long historical pedigree, instead succeeded in cementing an innovation, perhaps to set limits to an innovation, or at worst, to further advance the agenda of those liturgists who were responsible for the drafting of the same document. It should be noted for historical clarity, that the same person who was responsible for crafting much of what became the novus ordo, was also responsible for De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, Archbishop Annible Bugnini.

Tofari perceives in his article that there is a lack of historical pedigree to the Dialogue Mass, because he doesn’t dwell very long on the nature or authority of De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. Obviously, liturgical discipline is changeable, and there are ample historical examples of liturgical changes, after being deemed a disservice to the Church, later being jettisoned. A historical precedent must be set, because reliance on De musica sacra et sacra liturgia does nothing more than place the Dialogue Mass on the same level as other 20th century liturgical innovations, thus leaving it open to the same valid criticisms by traditionalists. Tofari must demonstrate that the Dialogue Mass had been handed down to the modern Church, since that is the only argument that can silence the traditionalist critique.

He begins, very early in his article by presenting the various Eastern rites as a kind of historical precedent for the Dialogue Mass. While the dialogue between the priest, deacon, subdeacon and choir/congregation in many Eastern Rite liturgies resembles in some ways a Dialogue Mass as described above, nevertheless, the dissimilarities are greater than the similarities. First, the Dialogue Mass, as described by De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, only takes place in the context of the Low Mass. Historically there is no such thing as a “low” Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The dialogue that exists in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom exists, not as a conscious effort to create dialogue for the sake of dialogue, but as a natural evolution of eastern chant at sung liturgies. The same is true in western sung liturgies wherein the congregation is able to chant the various parts of the Ordinary of the Mass due to familiarity born of repetition. Indeed, repetition is the main reason why this “dialogue” evolved in the Eastern Rites. Western liturgy is more varied, thus explaining the uneven development of congregational singing and chanting.

When Mr. Tofari presents the Eastern Liturgies as an example of a precedent for the Dialogue Mass he is simply comparing apples to oranges. The dialogue at the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom represents a long historical and organic development of that liturgy in cultural and historical circumstances very much different from those in the West. Indeed, the precedent is a complete fiction once one considers the fact that the Dialogue Mass should only take place within the context of a Low Mass, and there simply is no such thing as a “low Eastern liturgy.” In any case, historical precedent must be found in the Western Church, not the Eastern Churches. If the various Rites were interchangeable in their form and various elements, then any matching and mismatching between the Rites would be perfectly acceptable. We know, however, that this is definitely not the case.

Mr. Tofari struggles to find this historical precedent in Western Church when he writes:

It is an indisputable historical fact that from the Early Church until approximately the 17th century the faithful in the West customarily participated at sung Masses by alternating with the clerical schola and responding to the sacred ministers.

This is, indeed, a historical fact. However, it doesn’t speak in defense for the Dialogue Mass as described above in the document De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. Once again Tofari is comparing apples to oranges. The Dialogue Mass should not take place during a sung Mass. The reason, according to the only Church document to describe the practice, is the obvious inference that the congregation ought to be participating in the sung Mass by, at the very least, participating in the singing or chanting of the Ordinary of the Mass. One cannot sing the responses and say them at the same time!

It would seem that Mr. Tofari is blurring the most necessary of distinctions between a Dialogue Mass and a sung Mass. There is, no doubt, plenty of historical precedent for the congregation to participate in a sung Mass by singing or chanting the Ordinary of the Mass and other responses. However, this precedent does not supply for something entirely different, i.e. the Dialogue Mass. Mr. Tofari may in his article decry the “Low Mass mentality” that evolved in the Western Church, but he can’t escape the plain fact that the Dialogue Mass, as conceived in the context of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, evolved from this very same “Low Mass mentality.” The only relationship between the Dialogue Mass and the sung Mass is that the Dialogue Mass is nothing more than a cheap substitute for a sung Mass. At any rate, they certainly are not the same thing, nor do they share the same historical pedigree.

A word should be spoken concerning Mr. Tofari’s resources on this subject. Mr. Tofari cites Dr. Adrian Fortescue and Fr. J.A. Jungmann in defense of his conjecture that there is a historical precedent for the Dialogue Mass. However, it should be noted that neither of these liturgical scholars present proofs of an historical pedigree for the Dialogue Mass. Fortescue wasn’t even aware of such a thing as a Dialogue Mass as described above, and Jungmann was familiar only with the innovations of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, to which his research in The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development does not speak. Jungmann and Fortescue are excellent resources for defending congregational participation in a sung Mass, but not congregational dialogue during a Low Mass.

More troubling is Tofari’s citation of Fr. Gerard Ellard S.J. and his book The Dialogue Mass. Citing Ellard as an objective scholar in the case of the Dialogue Mass is like asking Mussolini to give an objective criticism of fascism! Fr. Ellard was a radically liberal figure in the 20th Century Liturgical Movement. He was one of the founding editors of Orate Fratres, a periodical used to disseminate the extremist ideas of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, and he was a close friend and associate of Fr. Virgil Michel, O.S.B., one of the main proponents of versus populum, vernacular liturgies, and many other illicit innovations in the early years of the Movement. Ellard was a co-founder of the National Liturgical Conference, which promoted illicit liturgical innovations. He wrote the books The Mass of the Future and The Mass in Transition, both of which promoted radical changes in the Church’s liturgy to include the abandonment of Latin and the adoption of all-vernacular Masses, the universal use of the versus populum posture, church architecture that would force in-the-round worship, and, of course, strange forms of lay participation to include “dialoguing". To look to Fr. Gerard Ellard, S.J. for support seems like a very strange thing for a traditionalist to do. Mr. Tofari should choose his allies more carefully.

Ellard, relying on his credentials as a medievalist, in his book The Dialogue Mass, makes the claim that medieval congregations participated in Dialogue Masses. However, his claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Liturgy in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries varied significantly from place to place, and the only sources that give reliable data concerning liturgical practices from this time period come from the monasteries. Ellard, however, does provide much of what we already knew (from better scholars than he) about liturgy in the great Cathedrals and monasteries, all of which points to the importance of the sung Mass and the schola, not the Dialogue Mass. He even admits that his conjectures concerning lay participation during this period haven’t been proven. Indeed! They can’t be proven given the historical resources at our disposal.

Ellard made it a habit to blur the historical facts gleaned from his primary sources. He often claimed his sources were indicating a “dialogue” when in fact they were referring to chanting for a sung Mass. In his book, The Dialogue Mass, he often does not make clear that his sources are monastic in origin, so they do not speak directly to the question of lay participation as practiced in country or town churches. His conclusions about congregational and lay participation are colored, not by objective historical reasoning based on evidence, but by his own ideological presumptions, all of which are categorically false, about the nature of lay participation that were inherent to the radical 20th Century Liturgical Movement.

Of great consequence to Tofari’s argument is the historical research of other medievalists who have come to very different conclusions than Ellard. One example is found in the extremely thorough work of Eamon Duffy in his The Striping of the Altars. He writes:

The Candlemas ceremonies help to emphasize a distinctive feature of late medieval liturgy, one which brings it close to the practice of private meditation. This tradition, embodied in such works as the Meditationes Vitæ Christi, stressed the spiritual value of vivid mental imagining of the events of the life of Christ, especially his Passion, to “make hym-selfe present in his thoghte as if he sawe fully with his bodily eghe all the thyngys that be-fell abowte the crosse and the glorious passion of our Lorde Ihesu.” This search for spiritual communion with God through vivid picturing of the events of Christ’s life and death was, of course, evolved as part of an individual and intensely inner spirituality. But it came to be applied to the liturgy itself, and to be seen as the ideal way of participating in the Church’s worship. The pious lay person at Mass was urged to internalize by such meditation the external actions of the priest and ministers. The early sixteenth-century treatise Meditatyons for goostely exercise, In the tyme of the masse interprets the gestures and movements of the priest in terms of the events of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, and urges the layman to “Call to your remembrance and Inprinte Inwardly In your hart by holy meditation, the holl processe of the passion, frome the Mandy unto the point of crysts deeth.” The effect of this sort of guidance was to encourage the development of representational elements in the liturgy and to set the laity looking for these elements. (19)

Duffy’s analysis of common medieval practice among the laity almost entirely contradicts Ellard’s conclusions. It is somewhat understandable, since Ellard chose to look only toward monastic practice and the actions of the clerical schola in order to find what he was looking for. He illegitimately applied what he found among the monks and the clerical scholæ to the laity. Duffy, on the other hand, lacking Ellard’s ideological preconditions to his research, presents a more historically accurate picture of how the laity participated in the Mass during the medieval period. That participation strikingly resembles the methods of hearing the Mass that we presented in the first part of our study, and is entirely dissimilar to the kind of participation envisioned for the laity in the Dialogue Mass!

Mr. Tofari’s use of Fr. Ellard in support, however, doesn’t compare to the mental gymnastics he asks of his readers when he attempts to use the motu propio of Pope St. Pius X, Inter sollicitudines, in defense of the Dialogue Mass. Mr. Tofari writes:

Having provided the foundation for restoring congregational singing, the motu proprio also inspired the logical adaptation of similar participation at Low Mass, but in a vocal manner, called by some “choral speaking,” and known today as the Dialog Mass (Missa Recitata).

In reality, Inter sollicitudines doesn’t even address lay participation at Low Mass. The motu propio was intended to address the reform of sacred music, and lay participation in sacred music during sung Masses! Where does Mr. Tofari get the idea that Pope St. Pius X, by way of his motu propio, “inspired” the Dialogue Mass? Well, if we follow his footnote, we soon find out: Fr. Gerald Ellard, S.J., and from one of his most radically liberal books, no less, The Mass in Transition! Mr. Tofari has picked up Ellard’s rose colored glasses.

Mr. Tofari goes on to assure us that this inspiration took root so quickly because the idea of the Dialogue Mass was already ingrained in the life the Church. Tofari writes:

Having its roots around 1909, this development took only a few years to occur, which should not surprise us, as similar ideas and practices were being advocated as early as the late 17th century.

What are these roots in the 17th century? Tofari references Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy concerning two Latin-English prayer books for use during Mass (books, the likes of which, by the way, Mr. Tofari had disparaged earlier in his essay) published in 1676 and 1688. The latter “instructed the faithful to respond during the Preparatory Prayers and the Sucipiat”, and the one published in 1676 suggested “something similar”. It is worth taking a look at the actual footnote in Reid’s book, which highlights that these examples were exceptions, and definitely not universal practice, as Tofari suggests. These exceptions indicate, at best, an interest in promoting a liturgical piety more connected to the actions and prayers of the Mass, but this is only conjecture. Reid states that they “avoided censure”, not that they were universal or even widespread. This perhaps speaks to a desire to reform lay participation in the mid-17th century, but nothing more, and it certainly shouldn’t be construed as license for a practice that is akin to the Dialogue Mass as explained above. At any rate, two 17th century prayer books, which present an exception that was allowed, certainly do not stand up as overwhelming evidence in comparison to a mountain of prayer books and devotional materials intended for use during Mass, no matter good or bad, which indicate a very different form of lay participation common in the 17th and 18th centuries.

While Mr. Tofari has chosen to conclude the plausibility of historical precedence for the Dialogue Mass by considering the ramblings of Fr. Ellard, a radical Modernist of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, and a scant trace of evidence from two obscure references in 17th century hand missals, it seems more reasonable to conclude, looking at the actual historical evidence, that the Dialogue Mass is a novelty of the 20th century rather than a product of any previous generation. Whatever evidence Mr. Tofari presents in his assertions to the contrary either refers to Ellard’s imaginings, which are starkly contradicted by other historians, or sources that are concerned with sung Masses and sacred music, not Low Masses. For example, Tofari refers to a letter by Pope Innocent III (1216) concerning the faithful’s response of “Amen” to the Collects, and the saying of the Suscipiat, but this letter is referring to a Pontifical Mass, which was sung.

Much of what Mr. Tofari presents in defense of the Dialogue Mass is actually a defense of lay participation in sacred music. There’s no argument that the laity ought to participate in Mass in this manner. However, this does not constitute a defense of the Dialogue Mass as explained in the document De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. Quite to the contrary, Tofari’s evidence highlights the historical importance of the sung Mass. This doesn’t argue for, but against the Dialogue Mass, since the Dialogue Mass, as presented by De musical sacra et sacra liturgia, can only take place in the context of the Low Mass. Looking at the evidence objectively, and without the prism of Modernism employed by Ellard, the history of the Dialogue Mass can be traced back, at the earliest, to maybe 1908. Even if we could trace it back that far, it must be admitted that it was practiced as an innovation, among so many others, by the movers of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement.

Novelty isn’t a bad thing, in and of itself, as long as those novelties do not contradict Tradition or give scandal. After all, Our Blessed Lord told His disciples: “Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old” (Matthew 13. 52). There are, indeed, new and old methods of hearing the Mass. It can even be said there are as many methods of hearing the Mass as there are days in the liturgical year, and people in the pews. No one should be frightened of a new method of hearing the Mass. Traditionalists have demonstrated since the 1970s that a full and fruitful hearing of the Mass is more likely to occur in the context of the Traditional Latin Mass, even a Low Mass, wherein the layman is freed from the rigors of rote responses and liturgical “actions” that distract from meditation and unitive prayer. Traditionalists, then, should certainly not be frightened of the Dialogue Mass based solely on the fact that it is an innovation. Rather, traditionalists look with suspicion on the Dialogue Mass for two reasons: it is a poor method of hearing Mass, as we concluded in the first part of this investigation, and because historically it is, indeed, the precursor of, having the same roots and architects as, the novus ordo Missæ, thus open to the same valid and well founded traditionalist criticisms. The historical record demonstrates that the Dialogue Mass is not traditional, in any sense of the word.

There is, no doubt, a personal and subjective reason for Mr. Tofari’s vehement defense of the Dialogue Mass. It is obvious that Mr. Tofari has a definite attachment to the Dialogue Mass, and it has, no doubt, been at some level beneficial for him. This is the same obstacle often faced by traditional Catholics when they are confronted with those who impossibly defend the novus ordo as an equally authentic and divinely pleasing liturgy as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. One must overcome personal attachment and familiarity, even to a clearly inferior form, before one can recognize the beauty and spiritual fecundity of the higher order. I’m convinced that once Mr. Tofari sets himself free from the shackles of the Dialogue Mass, he will discover the greater freedom and benefits of more meditative and unitive methods of hearing the Mass.

We cannot, at this hour, deny certain realities about the crisis that we find ourselves in, and the saddest aspect of this crisis is what the Modernists have done to the liturgy of the western Church. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the center of the life of the Church Militant. Indeed, Pope St. Pius X began his motu propio, Inter sollicitudines, expressing this very same sentiment:

Among the cares of the pastoral office, not only of this Supreme Chair, which We, though unworthy, occupy through the inscrutable dispositions of Providence, but of every local church, a leading one is without question that of maintaining and promoting the decorum of the House of God in which the august mysteries of religion are celebrated, and where the Christian people assemble to receive the grace of the Sacraments, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, to adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord's Body and to unite in the common prayer of the Church in the public and solemn liturgical offices. (No. 1)

That the radicals of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement used the Church’s liturgy to advance their doctrinal ideas is an unavoidable conclusion. That they largely succeeded due to the lack of vigilance on the part of our churchmen is also, unfortunately, another inescapable conclusion. An honest historical study reveals that the Dialogue Mass was a novelty created by the radicals of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement. As such, this particular novelty carries with it underlining presuppositions about lay participation that run counter to the traditional understanding of the Mass and liturgical piety that Pope St. Pius X took for granted and Pope Pius XII explicated in Mediator Dei.

This subject, therefore, cannot be taken lightly. No matter the attachment that some traditional Catholics might have to the Dialogue Mass, it is imperative that pastors of Traditional Latin Mass communities understand the practical danger that “dialoguing” can have, in that it impedes the faithful under their care from hearing the Mass with the greatest devotion and benefit. It is equally imperative that the laity educate themselves and their neighbors about traditional liturgical piety that renders the most fitting worship possible, and renders the greatest benefits, such as unitive prayer and contemplation. Finally, those of you who have been enmeshed in a Dialogue Mass mentality, I challenge you to set aside “dialoguing” and experiment with other methods of hearing the Mass. I promise that you will be delightfully surprised with what you have been missing.

Dialogue Mass: A Personal Note about the "Artificial Debate" Comment

I’ve gotten a few messages and emails about what has been posted over at Rorate Cæli about the debate regarding the Dialogue Mass, what I wrote on Monday regarding the Dialogue Mass, and New Catholic, the administrator of that blog, calling it an “artificial debate”. Yes, for the record, I’m very well aware of what was posted there, both in the initial post and in the comments. I haven't read all the emails or messages, because, simply I haven't the heart, so please excuse me if I don't write you back personally on this issue. This will serve as a general response.

Regarding New Catholic’s last “artificial debate” comment, a good friend of mine told me on the phone today: “Well, I guess we now know who on the internet is a dialoguer and who isn’t!” That may be true, but then, again, it may not. I don’t really care. That isn’t the point.

I would like to express my disappointment and discouragement that my research was dismissed out of hand by New Catholic without his having taken the time to read my essays. I found this to be hurtful because I have nothing but admiration and respect for New Catholic and the work he has done over the years in promoting traditional Catholicism and serving traditional Catholics. He is someone to whom I would give the benefit of the doubt without question on any topic, even now.

I understand his concerns, judging from the tone and tenor of others leaving comments, and I do share them, as I strongly believe that this issue needs to be approached in a charitable and brotherly fashion, with patience, calm, and respect for others. However, we also must have respect for the facts, and we must approach them in the most reasonable way possible. For my part, I started out with one position, but was pliable enough to the historical and practical facts, the fruits of my research and the studied opinions of those better than myself to change my position. If, at the end of my hard work and hours and hours of research, it should be dismissed as “artificial”… well, then so be it. It is hard, though, coming from someone whom I respect and admire.

Having said that, I think it fair to relate here what I related to New Catholic specifically in regard to the Dialogue Mass debate. He chose not to publish my comment at Rorate Cæli, so here is a somewhat embellished version of it:

If certain innovations of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement are beyond discussion for no other reason than some or many are attached to that given innovation, or because a certain group of a certain kind of people practice that given innovation, then where do we stop? What then is open for discussion?

If the Dialogue Mass can’t be questioned because this or that person has a particular preference for it, then on what grounds can we criticize any other innovation of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement? If the Dialogue Mass can’t be questioned, challenged and discussed, then neither can versus populum, or the use of the vernacular, or even the novus ordo; certainly not the changes to the Triduum in the 1950s, a debate that was enthusiastically hosted at Rorate Cæli! Most Catholics attend the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and even a good number of traditional Catholics as well. Are we to conclude therefrom that any debate concerning the novus ordo is “artificial”? What can be and cannot be discussed would become a matter of personal preference or whim.

If New Catholic thinks it best to silence any and all debate about the Dialogue Mass at his blog (which is his prerogative) based on the fact that it is allowed and is practiced by many and by a certain kind of traditional Catholic, then he ought to be consistent and silence at his blog any and all discussion about every single innovation of the 20th century, including the novus ordo. After all, they are all "licit" and any discussion, with or without "exaggerated rhetoric", of their merits or lack of merit would be so many "impositions"! Whatever is licit is now beyond comment? So much, then, for the entire traditionalist critique of, not just things liturgical, but anything else that has emerged from our 20th century churchmen, be they canonical, doctrinal, or pastoral! The SSPX ought to be celebrating the novus ordo, and the rest of us ought to be enjoying some liturgical dance with guitars and bongos at Masses we share with our Protestant brothers and sisters!

Sorry for the hyperbole.

In conclusion, no, I do not know what he means by “artificial debate”. If this is an “artificial debate” then I’m not clear by what standard any debate or discussion about 20th century innovations can be deemed as real. At any rate, I will continue to stand by my assessments of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement and the crisis it brought upon the Church. It really doesn’t matter to me if in the end I must stand alone and be decried as a fool by those whom I considered friends. I will not take before the Judgment Seat of Christ a single regret in regards to His Temple.

Part II of my Assessment of the Dialogue Mass will be published tomorrow morning at 6am EST. Thank you for your patience.

God bless!

The Real Question of the Mass

Since my days in college where I was a "liturgical assistant," I have fought against this notion that the Holy Sacrifice is a meal, in the first place.  It is not.

It is true that Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, but it was not completed until the Sacrifice on Calvary.  The liturgy is not, as Weakland and his cohorts would have us believe a meal, with sacrificial undertones.

And that is the shift in theology.  And this shift in theology from the Mass being a sacrifice to the Mass being a meal vis-a-vis insitution narrative v. the consecratory prayer.  Ultimately, this is the problem with the Novus Ordo.  It can be argued that the architects changed the intention of the Mass from that which it was understood to be into something wholly and completely new.  And that argument has legs.

We can go on and on and on about the liturgical direction, the posture of the faithful, the attitude of the faithful regarding participatio actuosa v activa, the placement of the pax, etc, etc...those things are all very important discussions, as I can attest, but if we bring it down to brass tacks, it is this theological question, "What is the Mass, primarily, Meal or Sacrifice?"

If the Mass is a Sacrifice, we have 1965 years of theological certainty to back up our position.  If the Mass is a meal, we have 47-64 years to defend a theological shift.  We can find reference to the "meal aspect" going back to the first century, but that aspect is always, always couched as being secondary and subordinate to the Sacrificial action.  This is not the case since at least 1965 and most likely 1948.  When the Mass loses it's Sacrificial nature, it loses it's validity, because while the Eucharist was instituted on Holy Thursday, it was not completed until Good Friday.  And without the bloody Sacrifice of Our Lord and Savior, we have nothing more than a symbol.  There is no sign.  For what is a Sacrament?  An outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about Grace.  Without the Sacrificial action of Christ at Calvary, there cannot be an unbloody sacrifice at each Holy Mass.

So, we can argue all we want about postures and positions, they make the Mass more reverent, but the real question is how do we defend the unbloody Sacrifice against the notion of a meal?  The theological question is in front of us, we must answer it and defend it, in an orthodox manner.

Assessing the Dialogue Mass Part I: Practical Failure in Light of Authentic Liturgical Piety

Assessing the Dialogue Mass Part I:

The practical failure of the Dialogue Mass in light of authentic liturgical piety.

But as for me in the multitude of thy mercy, I will come into thy house; I will worship towards thy holy temple, in thy fear. (Ps. 5:8.)

A few months ago I was contacted by Mr. Louis J. Tofari of Romanitas Press who took me to task concerning my low opinion of the Dialogue Mass. Mr. Tofari sent me an article he had written for The Remnant Newspaper in defense of the Dialogue Mass entitled “Liturgical Principles & Notions Concerning the Dialog Mass”.

Mr. Tofari wrote a well-researched article with many helpful references. Tofari points out some principles of Catholic liturgy that are helpful in forming a Catholic spirituality centered on the Mass. However, there are various conclusions in the article that are logically questionable, many inaccurate historical judgments, and his research depends too much on extremely questionable sources that at best misrepresent the historical development of the Dialogue Mass. Unfortunately Mr. Tofari’s dependence on these sources has led him to make a disastrously positive assessment of the Dialogue Mass. In fact, nothing of worth in Tofari’s essay actually supports the legitimacy of the Dialogue Mass or proves that it is pleasing in the sight of God.

There is much to this article that deserves more than just a facial treatment, and out of respect for Mr. Tofari and the sources he quotes I think it best to deal with his article topologically in two separate treatises. In this, the first part of my response, I will treat the notions of active participation, liturgical piety, and methods of hearing the Mass, and how the Dialogue Mass does not constitute a worthwhile method of hearing the Mass due to its practical failures.

The first problem I had with Tofari’s essay is his “crux of the issue” (and by stating it as such, the reader is led to believe that this is raison d'être of the essay), which is stated as: “what is the ideal and best method to attend Mass”. Because his article is primarily a defense of the Dialogue Mass, it logically follows that he is arguing that the Dialogue Mass is “the ideal and best method to attend Mass.” Tofari states:

The Church’s mind has been continually affirmed by popes and eminent liturgists whose orthodoxy is above suspicion. They are all united in saying the best and ideal way to attend the liturgical functions, particularly the Mass, is by following the prayers and actions as closely as possibly with one’s mind and body. They also agree that one should join his voice in the various responses accorded to the faithful, whether sung or spoken.

Is this “following the prayers and actions as closely as possible with one’s mind and body” legitimately equated with the Dialogue Mass only? Is the Dialogue Mass the best method available to the Catholic faithful for joining their voices to that of the Church’s, whether sung or spoken? It is my contention that the Dialogue Mass as conceived in the early years of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement and as currently practiced is a poor method of following the prayers and actions of the Mass. Further, it is my position that the Dialogue Mass is a poor method to achieve the liturgical piety aimed at by either Pope Pius X or by Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B. In fact, there is very little evidence that the Dialogue Mass as it is currently practiced was even hinted at in the thought or writings of either. As for the Church’s mind expressing categorically that the faithful should join in the various responses, both sung and spoken—nothing of the sort is actually proven from Church documents. Church documents have, indeed, supported the faithful joining in sung responses, there’s no indication that the same documents considered spoken responses as equally important, or even mentioned spoken responses at all! This will be more thoroughly investigated in the second part of this treatment.

Allow me to first highlight some needful distinctions when considering liturgical participation. There is a difference between liturgical piety in general and the methods used to achieve a liturgical piety. Because Mr. Tofari appears to equate the Dialogue Mass with the best method of participation, it would follow that liturgical piety has been reduced to a single method, the Dialogue Mass. While I’m uncertain whether this is Tofari’s position, and I apologize if I’ve inadvertently misconstrued his argument, I do disagree strongly that the Dialogue Mass is the best method of hearing the Mass, and it is my hope that this will gradually become clearer as we make these initial distinctions, and, especially, as the diversity of methods of hearing Mass is introduced and explained.

Liturgical piety, or a Catholic spirituality of the Mass, is the act of uniting oneself with the actions, prayers and intentions of the priest at the altar, and, in doing so with the one Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary that is made present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A proper liturgical piety induces those hearing the Mass to better experience, internalize and benefit from the four-fold purpose of the Mass, which are adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation and petition. This we can say is the active participation aimed at by men such as Pope St. Pius X and Dom Guéranger.

Obviously, the better one participates at the Mass the more benefits he gains from hearing the Mass. This is a principle well understood long before the 20th Century Liturgical Movement. In the mid-19th century, Lady Lucy Herbert of Prowis wrote in the introduction to her Several Excellent Methods of Hearing the Mass with Fruit and Benefit:

To reap the full profit of this Divine Sacrifice, we must not only have an intention to hear Mass, but a formal application to what Christ does who is our Head, and offers us His members in Sacrifice. We do not hear Mass as we ought when we omit to unite ourselves with Him. We should join with Him by uniting our intentions with His, and by our application to what He therein does, the Sacrifice of Holy Mass being the mystery of our reconciliation and sanctification. Many fools that are now in hell might not have been there, if they had but once heard Mass as they ought to have done. For by means thereof they might have received such efficacious graces for their entire conversion, and such strength for to have withstood and overcome temptations, that they would never have come to that misfortune.

That active participation is necessary for experiencing the Mass with fruit and benefit is beyond contention. It is the central admonition of all those who have written on the subject. However, what this “active participation” entails has often been left unclear due to the dissipations of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement that reduced the notion to external, physical action.

We should clarify from the beginning that actuosa participatio does not mean “actual participation”, as Alcuin Reid states in his book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy (64). Reid’s unfortunate interpretation of the Latin has plagued many traditional and conservative arguments, making them unsound. These Latin words mean “active participation.” There has been a tendency among conservatives and traditionalists to change the meaning of the Latin word actuosus, -a, -um. This Latin adjective derives from the word actus, which means a deed that is done. It carries with it the connotation of physical or mental movement. When Pope St. Pius X used the term “actuosa… participatio” in his motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini, he did not mean “actual” as in real or authentic. If he had meant “actual” he would have used the adjective verus, -a, -um or something similar. This is because he wasn’t referring to participation that was real or authentic, but participation that was “active”. He understood that in the context of the Church’s liturgy, the laity should not be passive, but active. The real issue isn't how "actuosa participatio" is translated. The real issue is what "active" means and what it entails, and once this is properly understood, it will be clear that there is nothing in it that a traditionalist need fear.

Does "active" mean acting like the priest or ministers at the altar? Does "active" mean feverishly trying to keep up with the priest as one reads the liturgical prayers in translation from a missal? Does "active" mean tramping about the sanctuary was extraordinary buffoons? Does “active” mean shouting out the acolytes’ responses from the nave as happens at many Dialogue Masses?

Pope Pius XII reminds us in Mediator Dei that “the chief element of divine worship must be interior” (24). Neither Pope St. Pius X nor Dom Guéranger intended any of these exterior human actions as constituting “active participation”. A cursory reading of Guéranger reveals that his idea of active participation entailed being attentive to the actions of the priest at the altar, understanding the significance and symbolic meaning of every part of the Mass, knowing and meditating on the liturgical texts, praying with the liturgical texts prior to Mass as preparation for assisting, and above all, it meant making oneself pliable to the awesome and unitive graces readily available and present at the Holy Sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. Calvary is made present to the Christian, and the Christian ought to make himself present at Calvary in turn. I would go even further in adding that this interior active participation entails extending the Church’s liturgy into our homes and places of business by allowing the Mass to shape the whole of our lives, both moral and spiritual. Pope Pius XII wrote in Mediator Dei:

Genuine and real piety, which the Angelic Doctor calls "devotion," and which is the principal act of the virtue of religion—that act which correctly relates and fitly directs men to God; and by which they freely and spontaneously give themselves to the worship of God in its fullest sense—piety of this authentic sort needs meditation on the supernatural realities and spiritual exercises, if it is to be nurtured, stimulated and sustained, and if it is to prompt us to lead a more perfect life. (32)

This liturgical piety, however, remains a nebulous, theoretical reality without a practical means of achieving it. The practical means of achieving this liturgical piety is provided by methods of hearing the Mass. A method of hearing the Mass is a practice or exercise for those hearing the Mass based on the actions and prayers of the ministers at the altar, and many are accompanied by a set of meditations. A method of hearing the Mass is the means to accomplish the kind of active participation that the Church invites her sons and daughters.

There are very many methods, ranging from the very simple and straight forward, such as following along in the missal, reading the liturgical texts in translation as they are being offered at the altar by the priest, to the more complex and meditative, such as those offered by Lady Lucy Herbert, St. Francis de Sales or St. Peter Julian Eymard. Some methods fall in between, such as those methods which suggest reciting given prayers during certain parts of the Mass. A good example of the later would be the methods suggested by St. Leonard of Port Maurice in the early 18th century (The Hidden Treasure: Holy Mass, TAN Books and Publishers).

The more meditative methods provide various meditations, themes and elements on which to focus. Some methods focus on offering adoration, others, thanksgiving and praise, others make intercession to grow in virtue and overcome vice, still others focus on making reparation. The goal is a mystical union with the offering of the priest, and Christ on Calvary, His Resurrection, and His Glorious Ascension into heaven. While using these methods requires greater preparation prior to Mass, they give the faithful a means to participate in such a way that their whole lives are transformed by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

These methods of hearing the Mass are not private devotions like praying the rosary. There is nothing private about a method intended to unite an individual with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the public worship of the Church. By being present at and uniting oneself to the public worship of the Church is to act publicly, not privately. The primary actus, or movement, of “active participation” needs be an internal action of the soul, which perceives, judges and then wills to be united to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This movement is internal, but is still public because of its object. To meditate on the Passion of Christ, present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is something done internally, but it is an activity that mystically joins the individual to the public action of Christ on a much deeper and meaningful level than mere vocal prayers.

These methods of hearing Mass do not prevent one from being attentive to the liturgical prayers or the actions of the priest at the altar. In fact, these methods are dependent on being attentive to what is happening at Mass. The actions of the priest at the altar supersede, or punctuate, meditative methods of hearing the Mass. For example, the bells at the Sanctus invite all the faithful to pray this liturgical text, and the bells at the elevation invite all the faithful to adore the sacred species. Changes in postures act as cues for the faithful to be attentive to the actions at the altar and to allow these actions to move their meditations. Those who use more meditative methods of hearing the Mass need to familiarize themselves with the Propers of the day prior to Mass, thus making the petitions of the Propers their own during the Mass.

These methods of hearing Mass do not exclude those using them from singing the kyriale with the schola or choir, and even aids them in doing so by enriching the liturgical texts of these chants with meaningful meditations. Methods of hearing the Mass can be conceived for sung Masses when the laity sings with the choir or schola, or for the laity who do not sing with the choir or schola due the complexity of the Mass setting.

Thus we return to the question above: is this “following the prayers and actions as closely as possible with one’s mind and body” legitimately equate exclusively with the Dialogue Mass?

As stated, all these various other methods depend on being attentive to the actions of the priest at the altar, and they use cues from the Mass to move and shape meditation and prayer. The more meditative methods require even greater preparation and familiarity with the liturgical texts and Propers than would be required by those simply following along in their missals. Thus, these other methods also help the faithful to follow the prayers and actions of the Mass closely and reverently.

In a footnote, Mr. Tofari references an article that appeared in The Angelus by Fr. Michael Simoulin, SSPX, “Attendance at Mass and Participation in the Liturgy”. This article summarizes a proper understanding of a liturgical piety as an active participation that culminates in praying as the Church intends. Fr. Simoulin notes that:

We must clarify however, that the Church has never wanted to impose categorically that this active participation be accomplished exclusively by chant, responses and position… The temperaments, characters and leanings of men are so varied and different, that not all can be governed and led in the same way with prayers, canticles and common acts. Moreover, the needs of souls and their tastes are not the same everywhere and do not always remain in each and everyone (Pius XII).

Liturgical piety and an active participation called for by the Church can, indeed, be acquired by various methods other than the Dialogue Mass, and the worth of each method is dependent, in large measure, on subjective factors. While the Dialogue Mass does depend on following the prayers and actions at the altar closely, it is clear from what has already been presented that the Dialogue Mass isn’t the only method of hearing the Mass that centers on “following the prayers and actions [of the Mass] as closely as possible with one’s mind and body”. In fact, it should be noted that other methods are better for the purpose of the faithful joining their voices to that of the Church by fostering a genuine interior as well as exterior participation.

Thus, we simply cannot conclude that the Dialogue Mass is the best method of hearing the Mass. However, is it even a good method? The difficulties incumbent in the practice of the Dialogue Mass indicates that it is not.

The first glaring impracticality of the Dialogue Mass is the fact that most of the faithful do not know Latin or how to pronounce it without formal training. An altar boy is trained to correctly pronounce the Latin and to know, even though they might not be fluent in Latin, what each of the responses mean. Not all the laity in the pew will have access to this training, so it is obvious that not everyone assisting at the Mass will be able to join in this method. Thus, we are confronted by a situation wherein some people in the pews are vocally participating in the Dialogue Mass, while others are not. Those who are not “dialoguing” are unable to use other methods because of the distraction caused by those who are “dialoguing”. As was recently pointed out to me by a priest that serves my Traditional Latin Mass Community, those dialoguing in the pews present a distraction for the priest offering the Mass at the high altar. Imagine how distracting the same person would be when they are sitting right behind you! Thus the Dialogue Mass precludes any other method of hearing Mass, much to the detriment of those who are unable to benefit from the same Mass due to the distraction.

Secondly, and following upon the first point, is that rarely do those “dialoguing” get a proper training in how to pronounce the Latin or understand the significance of the prayers. As a result the language is often brutally slaughtered, giving place to a slipshod liturgical practice that has no place in the context of the Immortal Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass deserves better than shoddy and trite praxis.

To illustrate the point consider the importance that traditional priestly fraternities place on every aspect of the Mass. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter puts each of their seminarians through a rigorous training program from the first day they enter the Fraternity’s seminary. They assist at the Traditional Latin Mass daily, and undergo very many hours of careful instruction before being allowed to minister at the altar in even the smallest capacity. When a Fraternity seminarian is ordained a deacon he will conduct “dry runs” of the Mass daily in preparation for his priestly ordination. Even the minutest detail of the rubrics or the Latin pronunciation is painstakingly scrutinized every single day. The Fraternity training demonstrates just how precious the Mass is! (What’s more, this is the degree of reverential awe that everyone ought to have for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.) Because of this training, and the engrained reverence for the Mass gained thereby, the priest is the most qualified individual in the Traditional Latin Mass community to conducted altar boy training. Is it the wide spread practice in Dialogue Mass communities that the priest is training each individual in the pews how to properly pronounce the Latin and understand the significance of the prayers? This is never the case, at least to my knowledge, and this reality can do nothing but spread slipshod liturgical practices that run counter to the glorious nature of the Mass, which we ought to cherish as the most precious treasure we possess.

When a fundamentalist Christian takes a single verse out of Holy Writ, and then proceeds to interpret the rest of the Scriptures according to that one verse taken out of context, the Catholic rightly decries the foolishness of the fundamentalist’s error. However, taking a single concept out of context and then interpreting the whole according to that single concept is exactly what both Mr. Tofari and the whole 20th Century Liturgical Movement has done in regards to the concept of “active participation” and the Catholic Mass. This overemphasis on human participation, which is at the root of the Dialogue Mass mentality, more often than not diverts attention from the divine participation. Dom Prosper Guéranger wrote:

The assistance at Mass, if completed by the real participation of the divine victim, unites man to God in an ineffable way by the renovation of his whole being, for it produces an intimate communion between him and the Word Incarnate. But if the Christian who is assisting at the holy sacrifice goes no further than the uniting of his intentions with those of the divine victim, even so, his mere presence at so great an act includes a true participation in the supreme worship offered by this earth of ours to the Majesty of God, in Christ, and by Christ. (The Liturgical Year, Vol. XI, 27.)

It is the divine action, not the human action that makes the Mass, not only efficacious in grace and beneficial for the faithful, but also gives to it splendour and true, spiritual beauty. Human action and participation only helps or hinders one’s experience or communion with the action of Jesus Christ, the primary actor at the Mass. The 20th Century Liturgical Movement placed “active participation” above all other elements of Catholic liturgy, giving the impression that the goal of Catholic liturgy is active participation. The goal of Catholic liturgy, however, is to render fitting worship to God! Active participation is just a tool that ought to aid in rendering fitting worship, and thereby gain the most benefits. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

If a form of active participation introduces shoddy praxis, hinders suitable worship, or encumbers individuals from experiencing unitive communion, then it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered good. Liturgical dance is a form of active participation, but I doubt Mr. Tofari would call it good or appropriate for the Traditional Latin Mass (or any other form of worship, for that matter). In the same way, the Dialogue Mass, given its practical failures, must be judged a rather poor and defunct method of hearing the Mass.

The second consideration in examining the worth of “dialoguing” as a method of hearing the Mass is the historical claims that Mr. Tofari makes for it. If the Dialogue Mass is simply the way the Church has always done liturgy, then by all means any argument against the Dialogue Mass would be invalid. But is there really any historical pedigree to “dialoguing”, or is the Dialogue Mass nothing more than a capricious and ideologically prompted innovation of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement? I will address Tofari’s historical argument in Part II of my response.