Four Points of Discussion with the "Reform of the Reform."

There is a continually growing sentiment within the Church, regarding the so-called "Reform of the Reform" and while I generally agree with it, there is one major exception which must be discussed, but I'll leave that til the end. However, I think that I have to continue to take issue with the overall attitude.

Let me preface this by clearly saying two things. 1. I applaud the efforts of those who have authentically worked to have them applied. It takes some courage to stand up to peers and I think that to an extent, that has been done. And 2. I appreciate the general attitude. I think that it is one which truly, truly embraces Benedict XVI's hypotheses reagarding the "Reform of the Reform." That too takes some courage for the very same reason.

But....

By and large the attitudes and words are just like the Holy Father's. They are mostly hypothetical. It has long been my contention that in order to truly enact the "Reform of the Reform" we cannot embrace the Novus Ordo. Here is why. The liturgical reforms of Vatican Council II were flawed. The Holy Father has said so in so many words, please reference the hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture. If we begin from a flawed position, the Church cannot be authentic. We know that this cannot be the case, in the Church there can be no error. The Church must be authentic in all that she does. My first point:

1. The reform of the reform must start from the TLM. That is what the Council Fathers intended.

I believe that in order to properly accomodate the reform of the reform, we must have a pope who is a reformer. Benedict XVI is not. He is an academic. There is nothing wrong with that, but we must understand what he is and accept that. I think that most traddies do, I think that most neo-cons don't.  I think that the neo-cons want to reform the liturgy based upon a reform of the Novus Ordo.  I know that most mainstream conservatives are just trying to "tighten up" the Mass as we have it now, so they love him. I know that most liberals don't care, because they are too busy opposing him at every turn. My second point:

2. There must be a reformer pope.

With the proper "Reform of the Reform," there has to be a theological clarification on many aspects of Church life, not just the liturgy. The Church must re-evaluate Ecumenism and religious tolerance. The churchmen who lead have forgotten what true ecumenism is. The Church must re-evaluate it's position on Ecclesiology, including religious freedom. The Church must re-evaluate it's position on the Magisterium of Vatican Council II. If Vatican Council II is only pastoral, to what end is it binding? Can a purely pastoral statement with no dogma or doctrine attached to it be binding on the faithful? And are those pastoral statements which are contrary to proven and accepted dogma and doctrine binding? Can they be? My third point:

3. The Church must re-evaluate it's positions on a) liturgy, b) Ecclesiology including religious freedom, c) Ecumenism/Religious tolerance, and d) the Magisterium of Vatican Council II.

Finally, I need to say this, and I take major issue with this idea.  There is an idea starting to be circulated that there should be a restoration of the ministry of acolyte, outside of Holy Orders proper, but still a minor order or ministry.  I am not 100% opposed to this idea, but as it is being presented, I do.  Here is why; it has been said:

"As for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, I have no issue with these in principle, but I think they should be installed acolytes and vested for this ministry. [...] I am not opposed to women being included in this ministry."

Under no circumstances can this be acceptable. IF (and it's a HUGE if) women are allowed to be installed into a minor order, where does it stop? This view is contrary to John Paul II's clarification that women are not called to Holy Orders. They speak of this being an ordinary ministry. Women are not capable of being ordinary ministers of anything. That is 100% contrary to Catholic teaching. If  the Church is to allow women to be installed as acolytes, why not ordain them as deacons? If the Church ordains them, why stop at deacon? Shouldn't they then be allowed to be ordained to priesthood? An installed acolyte is an official ministry of the Church and it is an infallible teaching that this is reserved only to men. To do what is being  suggested is to undermine the infallibility of the Church. I do firmly, firmly believe that the ministries of the Church ordinary or extraordinary should be reserved to men only. Why? Because they are DIRECT extensions of the power of the bishop. This includes ushers (porter), readers (lector), servers (acolyte), deacons, and priests.  Incidentally, any pious layman can act as a vested acolyte. However, 99.99999999% of pastors will not utilize a "straw acolyte or subdeacon" for the edification of the Mass. It is one of the few times when the liberals will draw a line in the sand regarding the "clericalization of the laity."

The use of laymen as subdeacons/vested acolytes has been a practice of the Church for centuries. (cf. Ministeria Quaedam) There are provisions made and to be honest, in the Novus Ordo, a layman does most of it already, but in a three piece suit (sometimes in a Havana shirt and bermuda shorts). I boggles my mind why a priest wouldn't just vest the pious layman and utilize him in a way which is most proper to the Church's authentic vision of the liturgy.

We must return to a proper understanding of our roles within the Church. My fourth and final point:

4. The Church must reaffirm it's positioning on ministry and definition of priesthood.

In summation, I think that this discussion can start, but I think that the four major issues which must be discussed, frankly, openly, and honestly:

1.  The reform of the reform must start from the TLM.

2.  There must be a reformer pope.

3.  The Church must re-evaluate it's positions on a) liturgy, b) Ecclesiology including religious freedom, c) Ecumenism/Religious tolerance, and d) the Magisterium of Vatican Council II.

4.  The Church must reaffirm it's positioning on ministry and definition of priesthood.

Once these are addressed, we can start to look at how to have a real conversation on the "Reform of the Reform."