Understanding Pope Benedict XVI on the Liturgy

Tuesday, August 31, AD 2010

Assessing Benedict’s views of the liturgy

In “Where Truth and Beauty Meet”: Understanding Benedict (The Tablet August 14, 2010) – Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity, and Fellow and Director of Studies at Magdalene College, Cambridge, aptly summarizes Pope Benedict’s view of the liturgy and his calls for reform

[Pope Benedict] believes that behind many celebrations of the new liturgy lie a raft of disastrous theological, cultural, sociological and aesthetic assumptions, linked to the unsettled time in which the liturgical reforms were carried out. In particular, he believes that twentieth-century theologies of the Eucharist place far too much emphasis on the notion that the fundamental form of the Eucharist is that of a meal, at the cost of underplaying the cosmic, redemptive, and sacrificial character of the Mass.

The Pope, of course, himself calls the Mass the “Feast of Faith”, “the Banquet of the reconciled”. Nevertheless Calvary and the empty tomb, rather than the Upper Room, are for him the proper symbolic locations of Christian liturgy. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist has to be evident in the manner of its celebration, and the failure to embody this adequately in the actual performance of the new liturgy seems to him one of the central problems of the post-conciliar reforms. …

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Understanding Pope Benedict XVI on the Liturgy

  • Chris,

    I understand the good intentions behind your post and those you quote in it.

    It is extremely difficult for me to restrain my dislike for the Novus Ordo.

    Novus Ordoism is mediocrity incarnate, and I detest nothing more than deliberate mediocrity, than a deliberate shunning of the beautiful for the plain and the banal.

    To think that we have fallen so far from the aesthetic heights reached by the Church during the Counter-Reformation, to think that we now dishonor God by presuming to offer to him during worship a bundle of sub-par prayers, songs, and movements that reflect more the subjective desires of misguided liberals than objective standards of beauty and reverence.

    Relativism has placed objective truth, egalitarianism has replaced hierarchical truth, and emotionalism has replaced spiritual truth. These are the marks of Protestantism. I have read several articles recently detailing the rapid flight of young Protestants from their churches. One of the primary reasons they do so is because young people – as opposed to the out-of-touch liberal boomers who wrecked everything – don’t want these things. They don’t want this phony “participation”, this phony “inclusiveness”, this forced leveling of everything. They want to be confronted with the truth.

    Catholics are losing young people for very similar reasons. But at the traditional Mass I go to, I see more young families all of the time. It isn’t just old people who are “sentimental”; it is young people who reject the banality of the Novus Ordo, who want a fuller, richer, deeper spiritual experience. The Church may not gain millions of new adherents by returning to her greatest traditions, but those she does retain and attract will be of the highest quality. And that’s more important.

  • Eamonn Duffy mystifies me. The Stripping of the Altars is the finest, most moving account available of the catastrophic consequences of radical liturgical revolution. When I read it, I presumed that he was a traditionalist. In fact however he sounds like a typical product of the revolution, blind to its failure and tone deaf to its consequences. When he implies that “most Catholics” are content with the Novus Ordo, is he really unaware of the war that the bishops and clergy have waged against the traditonal Mass for the last four decades, or of the profound ignorance of the traditional liturgy that now prevails among the vast majority of Catholics under the age of 50? How can you oppose a reform of the reform that nothing in your religious education or experience prepares you even to understand? It saddens me to read someone I admire so much writing like a clueless apparatchik of the “magic circle.”

  • I’m a fairly young Catholic (32), and for years I’ve been going to a Latin language Ordinary Form at a parish that celebrates Mass in both forms.

    I like the Extraordinary Form. I just prefer the Ordinary–when it is celebrated in accordance to liturgical tradition.

    I do think that sometimes enthusiasts for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass tend to shoot themselves in the foot by excessive bitterness towards the Ordinary Form, which often turns off people who are unaware of liturgical tradition.

  • Ah yes, the ol’ unprovable Freemasonic conspiracy theory. “I know a guy who heard from a priest who knew a cardinal who swore that Bugnini was a Mason.”

  • Anywhere I have heard the Traditional Mass it has been sublime.

    The Novus Ordo, although valid, leaves far too much room for ‘innovation’, which is politically correct speak for irreverent.

    I was on holiday for the Sunday on which the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary fell this year and found a Roman Catholic parish, although the building did not look like a church, at the beach. What I had a tough time finding was the tabernacle. I blessed myself facing the crucifix, thank God they had one. Eventually, I located the tabernacle – at the back of the Church!!!!

    I was also privileged to hear a rock & roll Mass, with guitar and Lady Ga Ga like headset microphone. It was great and oh so Holy. Not to mention that the celebrant was so nice as to order all of us to remain standing AFTER we received Eucharist so as to be in the same posture, how democratic. The picnic like assembly IN the Sanctuary, with female altar servers too, was especially pleasant. I was clearly noticed for doing two things in complete and utter disobedience: I received on my tongue, while kneeling and I went back to my pew and hit my knees and bowed my head.

    Is that something wrong with the Novus Ordo? No, but it seems when you give liberals an inch, they’ll take a mile, or is that a centimeter and a meter – I can’t keep clear which ‘standard’ we’re using today, I’m sure it will change tomorrow.

    The Holy Mass MUST be the most important and sacred thing we experience – if it isn’t, why bother with the Faith at all. I don’t think the Novus Ordo is all that bad (although sometimes I struggle greatly to accept that) and I am looking forward to the better translations coming Advent of 2011. Nevertheless, the real problem is having too much wiggle room. I am a big proponent of liberty in the secular world – the Mass is not secular, it is not profane – it is Sacred and when it comes to Sacred things, innovation is not pleasant and should be discouraged.

  • I did have a deep discussion with my SD about the ‘innovative’ Mass. He has directed me in the past to seek God’s Peace and look for positive things, so I stated that the Mass I heard was ‘interesting’ – that is the most positive thing I could say.

    Actually, the rubrics were valid, so the issue was irreverence and not improper form, which is precisely the problem with lax rubrics and the Novus Ordo, as practiced, in general. In some ways we are actually given more grace when we can remain peaceful and reverent during an irreverent Mass.

    Christ told (supposedly) Gabrielle Bossis, “Even if you do nothing at Mass but try to drive away distractions, you please Me all the same. I understand.”

    I also knelt on the floor in front of the tabernacle, after I located the tabernacle, and begged Christ to have mercy on all of us, especially those charged with celebrating the Mass. It was a very powerful experience. Nevertheless, I pray that the new translation and accompanying catechesis helps prevent this blatant irreverence from continuing and spreading.

Trouble with Real Catholic TV?

Thursday, August 19, AD 2010

[This is Tito Edwards, I have current updates on the status of RealCatholicTV here.]

According to CatholicCulture.com, “while thoroughly approving many of the fine videos made available through “RealCatholic TV” site,” caution is recommended to the viewer for two reasons:

An apparent animus against the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, contrary to the clear mind of the Church; and a tendency to over-simplify complex cultural, ecclesiastical and theological problems, leading sometimes to the assertion of mere opinion as the “real Catholic” position.

In a recent episode, Michael Voris lays out the “Real Catholic” position on “Jews and Judaism” — a rather complex theological topic, as most people are aware. According to Voris:

The Jews who accepted him became the Church. The Jews who rejected Him .. having voted themselves OUT of the covenant .. went off and started a man made religion. Rabbinical Judaism (today’s Jewish religion) is to authentic Judaism what Protestantism is to Catholicism.

Suffice to say Steven Kellmeyer has raised some questions about this simplified treatment.

What do our readers think?

(HT: Mark Shea).

Continue reading...

50 Responses to Trouble with Real Catholic TV?

  • I personally do not understand the warning.

    Mr Voris is presenting his opinion or rather conclusions after doing research on the matter of the Novus Ordo has found things that he does not like about it. Has found things that seem rather odd about its implementation, promulgation and its obvious short comings and what he believes to be the ramifications on the Church.

    Mr. Voris only has a limited amount of time in which to present his segments at least on his free site, if he does not engage in to long theological discussions is because, I believe he wants to keep short and simple, something which quite frankly we do not do enough when talking about the Faith.

    I find his approach refreshing, sure it may lack subtlety and refinement but sometimes you need a blunt instrument to get the job done, and boy Mr. Voris if anything is blunt.

  • I’m uncomfortable with them calling it “Real Catholic TV,” esp. since it’s obviously a slam against EWTN, for example, and there’s the whole issue of authorization of the Church to call themselves “Catholic.”

    That said, I don’t see why Voris’s explanation of the historical facts and his analysis of *Jewish theology* are relevant to *Catholic* theology. As I understand it, the Church tells us to recognize that Jews and Muslims also worship the God of Abraham, and to recognize that the Covenant is still in some theoretical way “intact.”

    Yet the Old Covenant never promised spiritual salvation; only worldly salvation. And the Old Covenant was based upon the Ark and Sacrifice. Sacrifice ended when the Temple was destroyed.

    I think Voris’s assessment is fairly accurate, since the Jews of today are not practicing sacrifice.

    It’s kind of like T. S. Eliot’s criticism of “free thinking Jews” that got him labeled “anti-Semitic.” He was criticizing liberal Jews for not following their own religion’s teachings, the way liberal Christians don’t follow the teachings of Christianity.

  • Pingback: The Lewis Crusade
  • People in the days of Judah’s last kings didn’t like the prophet Jeremiah, so they threw him down a cistren. People in the days of Obama don’t like Michael Voris. Oh what a surprise!

  • People in the days of Judah’s last kings didn’t like the prophet Jeremiah, so they threw him down a cistren. People in the days of Obama don’t like Michael Voris.

    Gee, how did I ever miss *that* parallel?

  • He has said nothing extreme or even wrong theologically or historically.

    what does not sit right emotionally with some should not be used as a pretext to tarnish others.

    I can see his points but as with all people, including this blog, i keep the critical filter on.

    lighten up!

  • To be a Christian one has to be baptised, implying a choice to be included in the community, while those who stood outside remained Jews. Those who did not become Christians do not therefore lose their rights as Jews under the old covenant, unless it is claimed that the advent of Christianity had abrograted the old covenant. Now it is an attribute of the Christian God that He cannot contradict Himself in the course of time, for that would imply that He is merely a contingent being unable to fully forsee the future. Given this, the promises that He made to Abraham and his descendants must logically retain their validity through all the vicissitudes of history including the rise of Christianity.

  • People in the days of Judah’s last kings didn’t like the prophet Jeremiah, so they threw him down a cistren. People in the days of Obama don’t like Michael Voris.

    I refuse to believe this isn’t satire. Well played, sir. Well played.

  • Ivan, yes the promises made to Abraham and his seed remain valid… but not efficacious via the Old Covenant which has been superseded by the New Covenant sealed in the Blood of Our Lord.

    If anyone wishes to be saved, it will only happen by way of participation in some way in the New Covenant. Jews are not saved by Judaism or its sterile practices. Protestants and pagans are not saved by any practices of their sects.

    Jews, Protestants, and pagans may indeed be saved, but only by way of some form of participation in the salvific work of Christ and His Church, the only Ark of salvation.

  • “and a tendency to over-simplify complex cultural, ecclesiastical and theological problems,”

    Well, no s*** (Please no profanity – TAC Editors). I think that part of this problem is due to Voris–he really doesn’t, at times, seem to know what he is talking about–and at other times it’s due to the medium.

  • This is insulting. It’s Michael Voris S.T.B. Those letters give him authority.

    In all seriousness, the sooner his bishop hauls Voris into his office and tells Voris to stop it, the better. I honestly cringe every time I’m reminded of their existence. If you’re going to speak on behalf of the Church, you better be prudent and well-read/informed. Voris strikes me as neither.

  • The problem with the video on Judaism is that it ignores the biblical data–e.g., St. Paul in Romans–in favor of a hyper-simplified historical argument.

    And I was flat out agog at the video arguing the “only” appropriate form of government for Catholics was the “benevolent dictatorship” (his words) of a Catholic monarch. Then there was the argument that democratic government can’t work because the franchise cannot be limited to faithful Catholics alone.

    I know the Republic has its ailments, but I’m not interested in his cure.

  • I honestly cringe every time I’m reminded of their existence. If you’re going to speak on behalf of the Church, you better be prudent and well-read/informed. Voris strikes me as neither.

    Right. Voris is reckless and opinionated (which can be ok), but he’s not knowledgeable or particularly thoughtful. It’s a bad combination.

  • I stopped watching when Michael tried to convince us that Amazing Grace was an anti-Catholic hymn because it speaks of the unjustified as wretches. Last I checked, dying unjustified leads one to hell, a pretty wretched state.

    Christopher Burgwald S.T.D. 😉

  • Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic and also quite heretical. To sing such a hymn in a Catholic Church (something which I have seen personally) is a slap of relativism.

    To Michael Denton,

    Why would he do that? To my knowledge he has said nothing untrue or wrong.

    To the rest of the posters,

    Look at Ivan’s response to this thread do you think that may be we not putting things simply enough for people like him? He believes that the Jews are saved by the old covenant for God’s sake.

    The reason many do not like Mr. Voris is simply his attitude and directness. Sure you can be nuance and call it “simplistic” but in reality the reason is being direct something we don’t do because we need to be nice.

    Well there is a time and place for nice, but we live in dire times when we need brave people to stand up for the Church to those inside of it. I for one I am very glad that at least one lay person is doing it and that is Mr. Voris.

  • Voris is right about 50% of the time.

    I actually agree with him 100% on the so-called “ordinary form.” That message needs to be heard more often. What is derided as an “oversimplification” is really the complaint of those who prefer to obfuscate with complexity matters that are really are quite simple, in order to conceal their true intent.

    As for the Jew video, since I don’t believe in thought-crimes, unless he is calling for Jews to be rounded up and killed, I don’t care. I don’t believe that the road to the Holocaust begins 10 years prior with a few anti-semitic remarks (if that is what they indeed are), and claims that it does are nothing but emotional attempts to control and stifle independent thought.

    Like others though, I thought his video calling for a Catholic dictatorship/monarchy was off the rails. It was elitist, politically ignorant, and embarrassing.

  • Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic and also quite heretical.

    Well, the 3rd verse does say the Pope is the whore of Babylon, but I would imagine that is usually skipped when sung at mass.

    What on earth are you talking about?

  • This notion that Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic is just myth. At most it can be described as non-Catholic in origin. There is only one potentially offending passage, but it can easily be interpreted in keeping with orthodoxy. People really need to do some research before posting whatever hearsay they happened to have read. There is good reason that this hymn has been approved for Catholic hymnals. Now weather one likes it or not, that is another question entirely.

  • Do you really want to know what I think?

    I apologize in advance.

    The “animus” thing alleges Voris is 100% against the ordinary form, and is EVIL. That seems to be a false generalization. The “oversimplification” thing seems to say he’s too freaking stupid to understand the complexities or to agree with the “enlightened.”

    So, as it now seems acceptable: the lefty, professional catholic (much like his Obama-worshipping, liberal cousin) resorts to ad hominems, detractions, distractions, exaggerations, misdirections, etc. to stifle anyone so EVIL as to disagree with the TRUTH.

    I think Pope Mark is a jerk, anyhow. Voris isn’t here to defend himself.

    Again, I apologize!

  • I’m sorry did someone just accuse a “lefty, professional catholic (much like his Obama-worshipping liberal cousin)” of resorting to ad hominems?!?!?

    I’m not even sure who is being attacked here, but I do know what an ad hominem attack is. Yeesh.

  • Heh. Yes, well we know only terrible people who injure puppies for fun use ad hominems.

  • “Real” Catholic is real heresy.

  • Mr. Voris has issued an apology regarding the Catholic Government video. He never claimed to be perfect, and is doing what every responsible person should do, apologize when he’s wrong. Calling this extremely faithful man a heretic is so insulting it is beyond belief. He is doing what no one else seems to have the guts to do – say it like it is. For some reason people are intimidated by that, and calling him and his staff names seems to make them feel better. I just don’t get that.

  • With-A-Z,

    I concur wholeheartedly.

    Mr. Voris has above and beyond done more for the Catholic faith than many of us have done.

    He certainly represents many Catholics that obediently dealt with much of what the Spirit of Vatican II crowd brow-beated into us such as these cultural gems like: guitar masses, liturgical dancing, and many other blasphemies that are so still prevalent in the Catholic Church in America.

  • Here’s what I know about Amazing Grace, other than it is campy and has a very annoying, pitchy melody:
    Marcus Grodi has said that “Amazing Grace” perfectly sums up what he *used* to believe when he was a Calvinist.

  • Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic only in the sense that some vanishingly few Catholics wish that the clergyman, John Newton who wrote that hymn after participating in the slave trade was a Catholic himself. Its pure jealousy, nothing else.

  • I have a Catholic friend who sounds like this when he talks about the Jews. Whenever he starts talking about Rabbinical Judaism (which is often) is a man-made religion and then went on to talk about how communism is entirely based on the Talmud, the Jews control everything, etc. So I ran a diagnostic test. I asked him what he thought about the Muslims. He said, “I have no problem with the other Semitic people.” In other words, some man-made religions are fine. It’s OK that they have a world wide religion based on half-truths spouted by a lunatic, but it’s not OK for Jews to believe in something based on books that the Roman Catholic church considers to be divinely inspired. I don’t know how this kind of thinking could not be identified as prejudice toward the Jews, if not full-blown antisemitism.

    Coincidentally, or not so, my friend has the same views as Voris on the Novus Ordo Mass.

  • “I don’t know how this kind of thinking could not be identified as prejudice toward the Jews, if not full-blown antisemitism.”

    Bingo. Anti-Semitism is a poison that harms not only the Jews, but those who harbor it.

  • Go, Michael go!

    Btw, I hope his next vid is a commentary on Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.

  • Sorry about the grammatical errors. The second sentence should read as follows:

    Whenever he starts talking about Rabbinical Judaism–which is often–he first notes that it is a man-made religion, then he goes on to talk about how communism is entirely based on the Talmud, the Jews control everything, etc.

  • Mr. Voris has above and beyond done more for the Catholic faith than many of us have done

    That he has done much for the faith is undeniable. Whether what he has done has been for good or ill is not.

  • I think Voris means well, and I’m glad he manned up on the Catholic government post.

    The problem is, I think his format forces him into an “attack on all fronts” approach which is only going to lead to more gaffes in the future. Complex subjects don’t lend themselves to five minute video essays. The format he’s aping–O’Reilly’s “no-spin zone”–is more of a mini-fisk of 3 or so “news of the day” items. As opposed to, say, the division between Christianity and Judaism and the development of the two post-split. You’re throwing yourself into an elephant trap doing that sort of thing.

  • The problem is, I think his format forces him into an “attack on all fronts” approach which is only going to lead to more gaffes in the future.

    That’s probably a good point. You can only present so much at a time. You either have to get a different more extended format to talk about certain issues or just limit the issues you treat with the shorter format.

    A good example of this is the talk show hosts who write books. Nearly all of the major conservative hosts have written books, out of the ones which I’ve skimmed or read, they all read much more thoughtfully than most of the shows sound, especially to the unconvinced.

  • That he has done much for the faith is undeniable. Whether what he has done has been for good or ill is not.

    Hair-splitting, gnashing of teeth, etc.

    I am sooo glad I am not an *intellectual* that I get caught up in semantics to defend and indefensible position.

  • Well, Voris often takes indefensible positions; he is reckless and not well-versed in the Church’s theology. By constantly defending him, you are implicitly defending his (frequently irresponsible) approach.

  • I am sooo glad I am not an *intellectual* that I get caught up in semantics to defend and indefensible position.

    I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be an intellectual, though I think intellectuals have much to contribute and I admire them. I hope at some point I can be properly considered one but I’m a long ways away from that.

  • My sarcasm fails again.

    You’ll get there.

    You are light years ahead of me when I was your age buddy!

  • Voris reminds me of me, a well-meaning yutz who knows about half what he thinks he does, and is terrified of moderating his views on anything because that’s what *they* do. I think Skellmeyer is closer to the truth than Voris, but as far as I know the Church hasn’t ever spoken definitively on the nature of the old covenant. We’re under the new one, and we know that it works, and that’s where our attention should be focused.

    Like Skellmeyer, I flinched at Voris’s frequent use of the word “Jew”, but I don’t think there was any anti-Semitism behind the video.

  • I will repeat what I said before: Michael Voris is a modern-day Elijah, Ezekiel or Jeremiah. Too many people both within and outside the Church have gotten so caught up in the nuances of minutiae that when bald Truth stares them in the face, they cannot recognize Him.

    Now as for Democracy, it is an abject failure. It was in the time of 1st Samuel chapter 8 when the “peepul” demanded to choose their own leader, and it is now – just look at whom we have: abortionist Obama! People in love with self-rule simply can’t accept that such is the case with democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. In the case of the United Soviet States of Amerika, that dinner is the corpses of murdered unborn babies.

    Furthermore, beyond that, Jesus Christ came to establish a Kingdom – a Monarchy – where NO ONE gets a vote EXCEPT the King of kings and Lord of lords. If one doesn’t like that, then one is free to leave the Church, the ONLY source of salvation. But we all know what that alternative is.

    As for Jews, they are still God’s Chosen People (and I just LOVE the State of Israel!), but they are still in rebellion exactly as St. Paul describes in Romans 9 through 11. There is NO equivalency between Rabinnical Judaism and Catholicism. In fact, there is only ONE Way to the Father, and that Way is NOT Judaism, Buddha or Hari Krishna.

    1st Corinthians 6:9-10 is still true regardless that almost 2000 years have passed since St. Paul penned these words:

    “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

    And yes, the NIV for all its Protestant bias does translate the word “arsenokoit?s” correctly in verse 9.

    The Gospel is about saving souls from exile for an eternity in the fires of hell. It is NOT about filling up bellies or other social justice nonsense. What did Jesus say to the crowd who followed Him around to Capernaum after the feeding of the 5000? He said:

    “…I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life…”

    It’s about time we jettison the liberal, Marxist trappings that have infected the Church since Vatican II. No, there’s nothing wrong with Vatican II or Novus Ordo. Rather, it’s about time we start recognizing that Jesus was NOT nice – He was truthful because He IS Truth and He confronted wickedness wherever it was, including whipping the money changers out of the Temple. Neither the religious hypocrites called Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes back then, nor the liberal Catholics of today can possibly tolerate that in spite of all their talk about tolerance and open mindedness.

    And one last thing: an open mind lets all the knowledge fall on out – thus do we have the problems that we have.

    There’s more like this here:

    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/

  • Hey, did my post go thru? If yes, then ignore this. If not, then please post. Thanks!

    I will repeat what I said before: Michael Voris is a modern-day Elijah, Ezekiel or Jeremiah. Too many people both within and outside the Church have gotten so caught up in the nuances of minutiae that when bald Truth stares them in the face, they cannot recognize Him.

    Now as for Democracy, it is an abject failure. It was in the time of 1st Samuel chapter 8 when the “peepul” demanded to choose their own leader, and it is now – just look at whom we have: abortionist Obama! People in love with self-rule simply can’t accept that such is the case with democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. In the case of the United Soviet States of Amerika, that dinner is the corpses of murdered unborn babies.

    Furthermore, beyond that, Jesus Christ came to establish a Kingdom – a Monarchy – where NO ONE gets a vote EXCEPT the King of kings and Lord of lords. If one doesn’t like that, then one is free to leave the Church, the ONLY source of salvation. But we all know what that alternative is.

    As for Jews, they are still God’s Chosen People (and I just LOVE the State of Israel!), but they are still in rebellion exactly as St. Paul describes in Romans 9 through 11. There is NO equivalency between Rabinnical Judaism and Catholicism. In fact, there is only ONE Way to the Father, and that Way is NOT Judaism, Buddha or Hari Krishna.

    1st Corinthians 6:9-10 is still true regardless that almost 2000 years have passed since St. Paul penned these words:

    “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

    And yes, the NIV for all its Protestant bias does translate the word “arsenokoit?s” correctly in verse 9.

    The Gospel is about saving souls from exile for an eternity in the fires of hell. It is NOT about filling up bellies or other social justice nonsense. What did Jesus say to the crowd who followed Him around to Capernaum after the feeding of the 5000? He said:

    “…I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life…”

    It’s about time we jettison the liberal, Marxist trappings that have infected the Church since Vatican II. No, there’s nothing wrong with Vatican II or Novus Ordo. Rather, it’s about time we start recognizing that Jesus was NOT nice – He was truthful because He IS Truth and He confronted wickedness wherever it was, including whipping the money changers out of the Temple. Neither the religious hypocrites called Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes back then, nor the liberal Catholics of today can possibly tolerate that in spite of all their talk about tolerance and open mindedness.

    And one last thing: an open mind lets all the knowledge fall on out – thus do we have the problems that we have.

    There’s more like this here:

    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/

  • Sheesh, now I’ve heard everything, that some Catholics think Amazing Grace is heretical. We better start looking at anyone saying or singing Kyrie Eleison because as we all know good Catholics only sing or pray in latin.

    We need to write the pope too as that ultra liberal bishop in Denver quotes the hymn in his column at the archdiocese’s website. http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=408&s=2&a=8581

  • Michael Voris caught my attention with his Catholic Monarchy episode, but then I saw his Vortex episode about the Marian dogmas. I now realize how deluded he and all those others are who support such false teachings, which are contrary to Scripture. I was somewhat disappointed, but it is the will of God that these things take place, that the prophecy might be fulfilled:

    1 Timothy 4, 1-3
    Now the Spirit expressly says that in the after times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies hypocritically, and having their conscience branded. They will forbid marriage, and will enjoin abstinence from foods, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by the faithful and by those who know the truth.

    2 Peter 2, 1-3
    But there were false prophets also among the people, just as among you there will be lying teachers who will bring in destructive sects. They even disown the Lord who bought them, thus bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their wanton conduct, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned. And out of greed they will with deceitful words use you for their gain. Their condemnation, passed of old, is not made void, and their destruction does not slumber.

    Thus we are warned:

    Colossians 2, 8
    See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.

    It is time to send these dogmatics to the pound.

  • Here is the real problem with people who dont like Voris. “They want there(own)catholic church, not (the) Catholic Church.” If you want to see the truth on how many liberal clergy have abused the teachings of Vatican two, READ THE DOCUMENTS. Your eyes will be opened. I currently attend a parish where lectors change the wording in the missal from “brothers and sisters to sisters and brothers.” When confronted he said that is how he personaly thinks it should read. I have said something to our Priest and nothing has been done. We have a woman serving on the alter “alterserver” who vocaly supports legal abortion and assisted suicide, all the while telling everybody she can all about her feminist theology. When confronted I recieved the “judge not” response. Perhaps she is ignorent to the spiritual works of mercy. Meanwhile a faithful Catholic has been “fired” as an alterserver because he made a stink about all the liturgical abuses, I will admit “some” of his accusations were wrong, but the point is he was just trying to do what was right. These are the lay catholics AND clergy who dislike Voris. They just dont like being called out. Like I said they want there “own” Catholic Church. What these people are are protestants in catholic clothing, or better yet said wolves in sheeps clothing. God Bless

  • To our frien Mr. Henry.
    Perhaps you could shre with us all Mr. Voris theological failings.

  • Why is their website off-line?

    Anyone know?

  • Someone ought to post a warning about CatholicCulture and the neo-con modernists who run it.

  • I fear that Voris is setting himself and his fans up for a fall. I like most of his work, but it is presumptuous to name his venture “real Catholic TV.” In the relative authority vacuum we’ve endured post Vatican II, too many have been seduced into creating their own magisterium. I find the name “Real Catholic TV” reminiscent of the Traditionalist publication named “The Remnant.” Would they not be better served (and more in line with Traditionalism) to have named their publication “The Possibly Damned”?

    As a convert from Protestantism, I am very sensitive to the cult of the personality. Any time people are seduced into putting their faith in a person (even if unwittingly and even if supposedly a “supercatholic”), they will be swept away eventually.

  • RealCatholicTV has never bad-mouthed EWTN, in fact Mrs. von Hildebrand (one of many of their sources regarding the Mass) is a frequent guest speaker on EWTN with Father Groeshel.

    Further their “Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics” along with written documentation, and “Global Warming Unmasked: the Hidden Agenda” also including written documentation (both of which can be found on the internet) have been great.

    I study “Scripture”, the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” and the Vatican web site. Voris and RealCatholicTV have been true to all. If he steps out of line (which he has not), I’ll be first in line to say so.

    Check out their written documentation on the above, and provide better documentation that he is wrong – if you can.

    The more that true Catholics who love the Church make abuses from within known, perhaps future abuses will be fewer and more limited.
    Catholic Culture may have been too sensitive and read things into the videos that were not really there. Listen carefully and read the documentation. The Canadian Priest in “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was great, and right on.

  • What Michael Voris said about the Jews in his Vortex video was true. RCTV also has a one hour video available on the same subject that covers more ground than the Vortex spot.

Translation: Cardinal Schonborn Expressly Approved The Unholy Mass

Sunday, July 11, AD 2010

A commenter, Dave Hahn, asked if anyone bothered to translate the gloria.tv report on the Unholy Mass.

Well someone did.

Here is a direct quote from the video of the priest in his homily:

In his homily, Father Faber made a point of saying that Cardinal Schönborn expressly approved this celebration. Despite the fact that Gloria TV had documented liturgical abuses during the previous years, Despite international exposure and world criticism, Cardinal Schönborn stands behind the event.

The following is the complete translation of the gloria.tv video of Cardinal Schonborn’s expressly approved Unholy Mass:

On the 29th of June, the pastor of Vienna’s Cathedral, Father Toni Faber celebrated the so called Western Mass at the Danube Island Festival, for the third time. The Danube Island Festival is an annual large open air music festival in Vienna.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Translation: Cardinal Schonborn Expressly Approved The Unholy Mass

  • In fairness, the priest’s report of Cardinal Schonborn’s speech, even if accurate as reported, cannot reasonably be construed to imply or entail approval of the “Western Mass” as such – the Cardinal only sends his blessings and greetings to Fr. Faber’s flock.

  • Perhaps a result of the thinking of the Eucharist only as a meal. Along with this throw in the denial of the Real Presence. If the Eucharist is only a meal, why not have others join in by sharing and eating what they also brought along.

  • The whole thing is lunatic. Fortunately it won’t really play in Peoria; most people surfeited with barbecued meat, beer and ciggies don’t care for the religious stuff. Why go chomp on a thin wafer when you can open a bag or two of tortilla chips and some hot salsa? And what’s with the gospel music anyway? Turn on some freaking Aerosmith!

  • Pauli,

    You’re right.

    If they’re going off the deep end like they want to, why do it halfway.

    Even when they try to be worldly they still get it wrong.

  • Chris has a good point. Bishops, cardinals, and popes send “blessings and greetings” to people all the time without necessarily expressing approval of all their actions. For example, Veronica Lueken, the supposed visionary of Bayside, used to parade a routine blessing given to one of her followers by Pope John Paul II as “proof” that her shrine and her visions had received Church approval. Does Gloria TV or anyone else have clear evidence that Cardinal Schonborn not only gave permission for a Mass to be celebrated at the festival, but also approved the MANNER in which it was celebrated?

  • How in heaven’s name could any Cardinal approve of this fiasco as a Mass. One has therefore to believe the Cardinal did not know the extent of what was planned, however, if the presider only assumed this was a normal “blessing of the event” was permission than where is the rebuttal and denial of approval from the Cardinal as to the acutal event that took place.

  • AFL,

    Considering that Cardinal Schonborn celebrated the infamous “Balloon Mass” and defended his participation in it and being the prelate of Austria where there was a revolt in the See of Linz when an orthodox bishop was appointed because the priests didn’t want to give up their girlfriends, then I can see this happening.

    Cardinal Schonborn may be orthodox, but he’s what I call “personally orthodox, ecclesiastically incompetent” type of bishop.

  • Tito, this all seems like pretty thin gruel if you are looking for muck to sling at the cardinal. Why are you on this crusade against him?

  • JohnH,

    Thin gruel?

    That’s a very interesting choice of words considering the mountain of evidence in the video that says otherwise.

  • Well, I suppose if you assumed the worst at every turn, it would seem like a mountain of evidence.

    I’ve been to a World Youth Day where worse things than were shown in the Austrian video happened. Given that WYD was organized by Pope John Paul II, can I assume that the misbehavior I witnessed was “expressly approved” by Pope John Paul II?

    I’ve also been to a conference back in the 1990’s that included some truly atrocious charismatic liturgies, including one where a priest handed hosts to everyone to hold while he did the consecration. Given that Archbishop Chaput was one of the clergy at the conference, can I go tell people about how he “expressly approved” this?

    I don’t think so. But if I already had a grudge against Archbishop Chaput or Pope John Paul II, I might try to make a case of this. Which makes me think you have something against Cardinal Schonborn. So, I’d ask again: Why are you on this crusade against him?

  • JohnH,

    I see where you are coming from.

    No, I do not have a grudge against him.

    I like him a lot based solely on his work of the Catechism.

    I am just reporting a “pattern” of behavior that I have noticed in one of my favorite prelates.

    It is deeply disturbing to think that I use to read through his many writings soaking up all the knowledge.

    To think that I looked up to this good man as a model of ecclesial leadership, substance, and scholarship makes me think twice on many other prelates that I look up to.

    I am heartbroken and dismayed by the recent spate of actions he has involved himself in that I now question his judgment on anything he does.

  • JohnH I understand your points, but do not feel your comparison is a fair one. There is a major difference between one to be holding a large event as YD where each individual occurence can not be controlled and one is critical of the occurences. This event evidently scantioned by a “priest” who had acknowledged a blessing of the event ( certainly not a Liturgal event according to the rubics ) has not been openly critized by his Bishop and this case the Cardinal is truly amazing regardless of the Cardinal’s past history. How about after all the publicity some comment from the Cardinal as how and why the event took place in the first place.

Unholy Mass in Austria With Explicit Approval of Cardinal Schonborn

Monday, July 5, AD 2010

Updated below with still photographs.

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn has had a series of blunders these past 18 months.  From his participation in a balloon Mass to criticizing a high ranking Cardinal of the Vatican.  He has been verbally and personally reprimanded by the Pope himself.

Now comes this ‘Wild Western’ Mass caught on video being celebrated in Austria with his explicit approval.

You be the judge:

A Mass is celebrated in Austria with the explicit approval of Cardinal Schonborn. Shown in this Mass being celebrated in German are sacrilegious, blasphemous, and unholy desecration’s of the Holy Mass.

Continue reading...

49 Responses to Unholy Mass in Austria With Explicit Approval of Cardinal Schonborn

  • I see and hear of things like this and wonder why Cardinal Schonborn and his like are allowed to still call themselves Catholic. This is the same as the sex, idolatry and heresies that plagued the early Church. Persecution by the pagan Romans was never the greatest threat. Rather, it was dissension and discord and disobedience from within. The same is true today.

  • The Austrian Church seems far worse than the Belgian Church.

    If you recall the near riot that occurred when an orthodox bishop was installed in Linz. It had to be withdrawn because many priests and their girlfriends complained of his orthodoxy.

  • Tito,

    Hmmm. Much inappropriate here, but I have a few points of clarification:

    The video shows the Open Air Gospel Mass was celebrated as part of a three-day country music festival in Vienna, Austria (Danube Island Festival Country and Western site)in 2008. The program for the 2009 version of the fest (including the Mass on Sunday) can be found here: http://2009.donauinselfest.at/index.php?lang=de&module=programm&showInsel=17). The costumes are almost certainly part of the festival and not something worn specifically for the mass. Also, in Germany the Confederate battle jack is the symbol of country music; I would assume the same holds true in Austria. I very much doubt it was being used as a political symbol here.

    All that considered, the middle of a fest isn’t the best place to hold a mass, with the eating, drinking and talking sure to be going on in close proximity.

    My German isn’t great (in fact it’s lousy), but I think non-Catholic Christians (who profess belief in the Real Presence) are being invited to Holy Communion. Now that’s a real problem.

  • Sorry, the above comment was from Dminor – I forgot to change the settings!

  • DMinor,

    “Much inappropriate”?

    For what? For posting this video of a poorly celebrated Mass?

  • Much inappropriate with the way the Mass was conducted.
    I’m pretty much with you on this one.

    I worried that some of the cultural context (European Country Music Festival) was misinterpreted as central to that Mass. Some of the things that were cited in your post (i.e. costumes, flag) were functions of where the Mass was being held, rather than a plan for the mass. Having said that, there was much in that Mass with which to take issue.

  • DMinor,

    I see now what you mean.

    I can agree with you all of your points.

    Though the priest celebrating should also avoid “perceptions of scandal”.

    It’s sad all the way around.

  • I am one who happens to like the Confederate Battle Flag, after all it is the flag of the army of Northern Virginia and I am a proud resident of enemy-occupied Northern Virginia. Also, please note that the Battle Flag displays St. Andrew’s cross – a Catholic symbol.

    That being said, the only flag I would consider appropriate at a Mass would be the flag of the country that the Mass is being celebrated in and the Papal flag. The beautiful Stars & Bars has no place at a Mass, outside my home Commonwealth and the rest of the CSA – in the 1860s! Of course, the flag is the least of the problems with this irreverant debacle.

    Thanks for posting this, Tito. Many of us can take comfort in knowing that the poor liturgy and innovative rubrics at some of the Masses at which we assist is not nearly this bad. Even a bad NO is better than this.

    Why can’t the Vatican ORDER all Bishops to force their priests to read the black and do the red, exactly as is required? I suppose the rubrics were open to less individual interpretation prior to 1962.

  • “I am a proud resident of enemy-occupied Northern Virginia.”

    Oh grow the hell up.

  • Sydney,

    Do you love here in No. VA?

  • Pingback: What is going on with Cardinal Schoenborn? « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics
  • I think I agree with some of the comments on Fr. Z’s blog about this video: It looks pieced together with different sets of video, and it’s difficult to determine that there weren’t two separate events (BBQ and Mass) being intentionally presented as happening simultaneously. Though it is clear that there are smokers there during the actual liturgy while the priest is clearly visible. Being outside doesn’t help. I don’t speak German so can’t speak to what is being said here. Perhaps we should study this a little more before throwing up a rope.

  • Alan,

    I agree.

    The tee pee’s, rebel flag, cigarettes, cowboy dress, and people eating both the steak and Jesus were all photo-shopped.

    I can’t believe I actually believed what I saw.

  • Pingback: Funkyzeit mit Christoph « Splintered Sunrise
  • “The tee pee’s, rebel flag, cigarettes, cowboy dress, and people eating both the steak and Jesus were all photo-shopped.”

    Note that this was not my assertion. Obviously there are abuses. However I am trying to ascertain whether some of the more BBQ-ish elements (buying food, drink, eating, etc) actually took place sometime before or after the liturgy rather than during. Distinctions are important.

  • So, you want me to believe that someone approached the cardinal with a request along the lines of “Hey, can we have a Mass combined with BBQ, country music, ashtrays and beer?”

    I highly doubt that.

  • How about write to the Cardinal, asking for clarification? Or write to the Holy See, asking for clarification. No one is allowed to judge cardinals, that is what the Pope said in his meeting with Cardinal Schonborn.

  • The author of this article is an idiot. If anyone is mocking the mass, it is a priest with poor judgment and the author of the article who is promoting scandal from a continent away. We are either with the church, or you are with her enemies.

  • Nick,

    I’m just presenting the video.

    Lank,

    Don’t attack the messenger.

    And you need to read the comments policy before commenting.

  • I’m not impressed by the decision that the ULTIMATE atrocity is the display of the Confederate flag. Is it inappropriate? Yes, certainly in this case it is. Any flag (certainly including the US flag) is a symbol for all that is good about a country, and also for all that is bad. A display of the Confederate flag would not be inappropriate at a Mass for the repose of the souls of those who died in the War Between the States. In this case, as is often the case, it seems to mean little more than “I like country music”, which is neither good nor evil. It is trivial, but its effect is evil: It trivializes the Mass.

    By the same token, though, it is wrong to use “patriotic songs” like America the Beautiful (which was the recessional at the Mass I attended this past Sunday) in place of actual hymns. The Mass is supposed to be centered on Christ, not Uncle Sam. Or do you only have a problem with the side shown so much honor by Blessed Pius IX?

  • Pingback: An Unholy Mass in Austria « Biblicus Semitae
  • Actually, I’m glad I saw this because a few weekends ago my 18 year old son attended a weekend music festival in Tennessee. When he returned home Sunday night I asked him if they had a Mass available there. He told me that would have been insane because, “people would have come crashing through in a drunken mess not even knowing what was happening.”

    That said, perhaps the whole “…except when on vacation or a Mass is otherwise unavailable” Sunday obligation business has been carefully considered and we Catholics should be cautious as to when and where we want to have the sacrifice of the Mass.

  • Pingback: Unholy Mass in Austria With Explicit Approval of Cardinal Schonborn « SoCon Or Bust
  • Is this the same Cardinal who wrote the Catechism? Ouch!

  • …or actually edited it? wow! what a turnabout face..

  • This is just weird.

    On a side note one of the most beautiful masses I have ever attended was while I was visiting Vienna a couple of months ago. It was at Stephansdom and it was in German but with a chorale and a chamber orchestra. I think it was the 10:00am Sunday Mass.

  • So I have a few questions. Number one is there only one diocese in Austria? If not how do we know this happened in the Cardinals diocese and not some other Diocese. How do we even know this happened in Austria? I’m not saying it didn’t but we are suppose to believe simply because someone said it did. Maybe there is more proof somwhere but wouldn’t one look stupid if they believed this was the case and it wasn’t the case? I for one need more proof that it actually tok place in Austria and it actually tok place in the Cardinals Diocese. Another question I have is if it actually took place in the Cardinals Diocese how do we know that the Cardinal gave explicit approval? Again because someone said it did. Did you ask the Cardinal if he gave explicit approval. If you haven’t fully found out the truth of the matter and the Cardinal didn’t give explicit approval and was perhaps even appalled that such a thing took place, assuming it did take place in his diocese, than isn’t the one who said he gave explicit approval guilty of some kind of sin?

    I’m just asking. If there is more evidence that this is actually in the Cardinals Diocese and he that he gave approval I would like to see it. I will wait to hear more on this before I make a judgment. I really find it hard to believe that the main author of The CCC would do things he is accused of.

  • Dave H.,

    If you’d like more evidence I suggest you follow through on your questions.

  • The priest is trying but unfortunately he had little control over the event and crowd to insure proper respect was accorded the mass. Hence poor judgment to offer the mass at that event, at that time. I’d like to redirect your attention to my website where the crucified Christ is paraded. He is revered by some. Yet in Mexico, the Catholic Church has to undo 70 years of ungodliness and teach the younger generations how to worship God. But in Austria too?

  • Excuse me…He had every control of the Mass cuz he knew what was going on in the crowd and decided to do it anyway. The priest needs to go back to the seminary and re-learn his Catechism.. 😉

    The Priest should no better than to say Holy Mass in front of an eating and drinking crowd. And what about the crazy non religious music in the back drop? Was he unaware of that, too? Please stop..

  • Maybe St. Paul encountered the same. Read this chapter/verse.. Hauntingly similar..

    1 Cor 10:21 — Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.

    1 Cor 11:33-34 — Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.

  • Dave H. –might I suggest you try the link my DH posted above? It’s the program for the 2009 fest (the video is of the 2008 fest.)

    Can we separate the sheep from the goats here?

    Authorizing Mass at a large fest so that staff and participants who might otherwise not be able to get away for Mass at the Cathedral can worship together=good. The Sabbath was made for man, etc.

    Arranging to hold that Mass in the middle of a busy, garishly decorated biergarten in an enormous festplatz where doubtless some less trafficked space could have been found=unbelievably poor judgement. Deliberate blasphemy? Can’t say–don’t read minds.

    Opening up Holy Communion beyond the usual dictates without a serious justification (if you didn’t catch this, freeze-frame the video at the Mass handout. If you don’t read German, copy it and run through a machine translator)=Violation of Church teaching and probable sacrilege. Whoever authorized that deserves blame.

    Having an Evangelischer (probably Methodist) choir not only perform (and I’m sure it’s not the first time Protestants have been engaged to sing at a Mass) but select “We are the World” as the after-Communion hymn=astronomically bad judgement. Though as bad was done often back in the 70’s. (My German is rudimentary, but this was described by the narrator so I’m taking her word for it. Otherwise, based on the video I couldn’t have said whether the song was being sung during Mass or outside of it.) Deliberate blasphemy? Again, I don’t read minds.

  • Europe has suddenly become a pagan nation. You all are in my prayers

  • Let’s be careful with how we assign the blame here. It is one thing to say that Cardinal Schoenborn allowed that a mass be said at a festival and quite another to state that he approved THIS mass with all its flaws. The “shocking” headline on NewAdvent.org reads “Austrian Catholics mock the mass” but that is more than a little misleading since many of those pictured in the story may not even be Catholics. Having said this, I for one deeply lament the abuse of Vatican II and the serious erosion of Christian culture in Europe and the West in general.

  • I am disgusted. All I can say is that Christ foresaw all these offenses to the Trinity while in the garden and suffered enormously for ungrateful, irreverent mankind. That’s what the deity did. Now, on the flip side, what man does, when flippantly participating in Holy Mass, or worse, when unworthily receiving Holy Communion, is heap myriad woes upon himself. He will find out just how so at the particular judgment.

  • We sometimes get the ad hoc masses because a few priests have become performers and can’t bring themselves to get off the stage. Headsets? The liturgy is abused.

  • The Guitar Mass is a big flag for me that the priest is either not in control of the liturgy or wants to be popular with the kids at the expense of the souls that are driven away due to the lack of solemnity and reverence in the Mass.

  • Looks to me like he is evangelizing. Does the Bible say there is something wrong with this? The two “1 Corinthians” quotes are out of context because they didn’t bring the food to the Liturgy, they brought the Liturgy to the festival. In the early days of the church the church met at peoples’ homes. They had the body and blood at each others’ homes. They sang whatever songs they were inspired to sing – at each others’ homes, and where ever they happened to be. They ate, drank, and probably cut a few farts. You guys are getting too formal, and adding too many of your own legalistic traditions. God’s people worship from the heart with true love and true feelings. They don’t just show up, go through the ritual and go home. Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and the rest showed examples of worshiping outdoors. The night He was arrested, Jesus prayed to the father outdoors. Jesus’ first miracle was making water into wine at a wedding party. I’m sure that if they had and enjoyed cigarettes, and God thought someone was going to make a big deal about it, He would have pointed out some one smoking cigarettes. Remember the petty arguing about eating various animals? Jesus cleared that up by saying ‘It’s not what goes in that defiles you. It’s what comes out of you.’ Despite that, Peter still had to have a vision, later, too clear that up. I think the priest is evangelizing by bringing his Liturgy to the public. In a country that has few people who have observed a mass during the last 500 years, crashing a party to have Jesus eat with the sinners seems like an honest attempt. What would Jesus do? Oh yeah, he ate with sinners. THE POINT IS TO GET THEM SAVED!!! More important that all the formalism that does go on would be to actually read the Bible in or out of church. Remember what Jesus said to Peter three times? “Peter, do you love Me?” Peter said you know that I love you. Jesus said “THEN feed My sheep”. One of the proof that we love Jesus is if we read the Bible to others. It seems this guy found a way to do that. If you think it is too wild of a technique, you need to read Ezeikiel, the last two writings of Daniel, etc. God has specifically commanded prophets to use weird techniques to get people’s attention. The priest isn’t doing anything to desecrate God’s holy anything. If he got one more person saved, I’ll bet that person will be thankful on judgment day. We should all do whatever it takes to get others saved.

  • Henry,

    Thank you for that enlightening thought.

    Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

  • “Authorizing Mass at a large fest so that staff and participants who might otherwise not be able to get away for Mass at the Cathedral can worship together=good. The Sabbath was made for man, etc.

    “Arranging to hold that Mass in the middle of a busy, garishly decorated biergarten in an enormous festplatz where doubtless some less trafficked space could have been found=unbelievably poor judgement. Deliberate blasphemy? Can’t say–don’t read minds.”

    The practice of offering Sunday or holyday obligation Masses at a large fair, festival, convention, etc. is nothing new. However there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

    For example, there is a Mass scheduled at the Illinois State Fair on each Saturday evening of its run and on the Solemnity of the Assumption (when it is a holyday of obligation). It’s listed on this year’s schedule as well:

    http://www.agr.state.il.us/isf/illinois/#AUD

    Note that said Mass is offered in an auditorium inside a permanent building — NOT out on the midway, or in a beer tent, or in the grandstand. I note also that a 90-minute time period is set aside for this Mass, although the Mass itself almost certainly doesn’t take up the full 90 minutes, to allow for setting up and for taking everything down afterward.

    I haven’t personally attended this Mass so I can’t say how reverent it is, or isn’t, but obviously some effort is being made to minimize distractions. There are Lutheran and Church of Christ services offered on Sunday mornings during the fair in the same auditorium so there seems to be general agreement that this is a suitable “worship space,” for lack of a better term. If there was a permanent building or ampitheater available at this Austrian fest site, that is where the Mass ought to have been held.

  • I don’t care how much you like the flag or how little space there was or how “other” churches do it there. Ya don’t say Mass in front of people smoking, drinking, carousing, and eating! Gimmie a break people! When you have dinner at your home, is there any decorum? Is it a free for all? I think not. So why here where God becomes Bread to eat for us!????

    Card. Schonborn, IF, he knew about the happenings would not have allowed it. I am sure of it. This priest was totally and utterly innefactual at best and ignorant like a stone to the least!

    And what about the music he had in the back during Mass? What’s that all about and got to do with Eucharist?????????????????

  • FWIW:
    The link posted above by Dominikus Klein is basically visitor info for this year’s fest and most of it is about the fest. The Google translator version of the segment mentioning the mass is below:

    Zwtl.: Gospel Mass
    Sunday at 10 clock, the traditional open-air “Country
    Gospel Mass “instead. Cathedral Priest Toni Faber of the Vienna St. Stephen’s Church will celebrate this mass. Okemah takes musical accompaniment.

  • Okemah is a U.S. based folk rock group and are on the internet, if you want to look them up. Not sure what their church music background is.

    I’m risking a flaming saying this, but I’m married to a church guitarist and it’s not the instrument, it’s what you do with it. There are plenty of songs–many of them very nice songs and some even with religious themes– that should never be played as part of a Mass, even on a pipe organ. But a guitar is not an inevitably inappropriate supplement to reverent worship music (remember Stille Nacht?). I’m not crazy about the term “guitar mass”–it suggest the Mass revolves around guitars which should not be the case. Nor should it revolve around an organ or a Gregorian choir, however.

    BTW, Knight, though I know it’s hairsplitting, that’s the Southern Cross battle flag–the Stars and Bars was modeled on a design similar to the U. S. flag that has since been incorporated into a few Southern state flags, including the current Georgia flag.

  • cminor,

    Correct about the flag; however, based on some the responses I have received in the past when showing my Southern Patriotism, I doubt most on here would know. Additionally the Southern Cross may also refer to the Union Jack flag represented in the flags of various Anglo-sphere countries like Australia. The American Southern Cross sure is a beautiful flag. It has been stolen by racists far too often and we need to remember that it does not represent racism, although it did represent slave-owning states – taken in the context of the times – that was not unusual and although ignorance is no excuse – a mortal sin does require full knowledge. Sadly at the time, Anglos were of the mind that other races were inferior – all of them, not just the African. Some still hold this warped view, as do a number of black men with the name Shabazz. It is a fallen world.

    Nevertheless, the American Southern Cross is a military flag and no matter how you feel about the conflict – all the soldiers who fought it were American, brave and honored to fulfill their duty – Of course, the Yankees weren’t as gallant as our boys 🙂

    Of course, as stated before – as much as I love this flag, IT HAS NO PLACE AT A MASS!

    I often fear that I am out-of-line when I criticize what I view as irreverence – who am I? I am just a sinner that needs to judge himself and seek amendment. However, are we to stay silent when we see irreverence? Is it the priest, the pastor, could it be the Cardinal (I doubt that)? Is it the people, is it the culture? Aren’t we supposed to identify and correct, with charity of course? We are called to love each other, but that love can only come from love of God – if we truly put Him first, then shouldn’t we ensure that we do all we can to pay Him homage, praise and worship as He sees fit?

    People are offended by the slightest tinge of political incorrectness or ‘hate speech’. The world goes ape if you call a Sodomite a Sodomite, but we are supposed to allow irreverent behavior, that may be acceptable elsewhere, in the midst of Calvary, table of the Last Supper and the Wedding banquet in heaven!!!! Seriously. Our laxity is offensive and I will be the first to admit that I am not nearly as reverent as I should be. I have difficulty with the bad music (not directed at you cminor), poor attire, sign of conviviality, host in the hand of lay people, lay people in the sanctuary, bad vernacular translations, female alter servers, on and on. I know I should not let these Novus Ordo distractions affect me but they do. I can’t imagine cigarettes, BBQ, rock and roll – all things I actually like (well perhaps not the cigarettes) at Mass.

    This is just wrong. Haven’t we hurt Him enough already. Sancta Maria, ors pro nobis.

  • I think I’ve figured it out… this was the first liturgy to be offered in the newly promulgated Redneck Rite of the Catholic Church 🙂

  • Elaine I know you meant that in jest; however, I think we do have a ‘Redneck Rite’. Although the South doesn’t have as many ‘catholics’ as the North, Catholics down here tend to be more traditional/conservative. Yes, right in the middle of the Protestant Bible Belt.

    I suppose that gives a whole new meaning to the South shall rise again!

  • Pingback: Translation: Cardinal Schonborn Expressly Approved The Unholy Mass « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Messa indignosa approvata dal Card. Schonborn

Happy Birthday Novus Ordo?

Wednesday, December 2, AD 2009

Among my many flaws is a deep appreciation for biting sarcasm.  A recent post by Damian Thompson at his blog at the  Telegraph is a masterpiece of this form of verbal combat:

“It is 40 years ago today since the New Mass of Paul VI was introduced into our parishes, writes Margery Popinstar, editor of The Capsule. We knew at the time that this liturgy was as close to perfection as humanly possible, but little did we guess what an efflorescence of art, architecture, music and worship lay ahead!

There were fears at first that the vernacular service would damage the solemnity of the Mass. How silly! Far from leading to liturgical abuses, the New Mass nurtured a koinonia that revived Catholic culture and packed our reordered churches to the rafters.

So dramatic was the growth in family Mass observance, indeed, that a new school of Catholic architecture arose to provide places of worship for these new congregations. Throughout the Western world, churches sprang up that combined Christian heritage with the thrilling simplicity of the modern school, creating a sense of the numinous that has proved as irresistible to secular visitors as to the faithful.

For some worshippers, it is the sheer visual beauty of the New Mass that captures the heart, with its simple yet scrupulously observed rubrics – to say nothing of the elegance of the priest’s vestments, which (though commendably less fussy than pre-conciliar outfits) exhibit a standard of meticulous craftsmanship which truly gives glory to God!

The same refreshing of tradition infuses the wonderful – and toe-tapping! – modern Mass settings and hymns produced for the revised liturgy. This music, written by the most gifted composers of our era, has won over congregations so totally that it is now rare to encounter a parish where everyone is not singing their heads off! Even the secular “hit parade” has borrowed from Catholic worship songs, so deliciously memorable – yet reverent! – is the effect they create. No wonder it is standing room only at most Masses!”

Did Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who birthed this kairos, have any idea just how radically his innovations would transform the Church? We must, of course, all rejoice in his imminent beatification – but, in the meantime, I am tempted to borrow a phrase from a forgotten language that – can you believe it? – was used by the Church for services before 1969: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.”

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Happy Birthday Novus Ordo?

  • If you hadn’t said this was sarcasm I would have thought that this “wumyn” was off her rocker.

    I think those that “interpreted” what they thought was the new Mass were the main culprits of causing the largest exodus of Catholics from Mother Church in history.

  • SOOOO funny! A classic!
    I love the part about “a sense of the numinous”

  • Latin has its incomparable beauty; however, English can be reverent, especially with the new Novus Ordo translations for next year. The advantage Latin has is that it is dead so it is not organically changing in meaning. Sadly the organic changes in English are overwhelmingly pejorative and politically correct (relativist).

    The fact is that the sparce Churches and modernist clerics are going to retire soon and we will see a true rennaissance in the Church if we can survive the secular progressive (Communist, Critical Theorist, neo-pagan, Satanic) persecutions that are coming.

    BTW – I like the sarcasm, but, as Tito said, it will be lost on many – probably becuase they want the liberality to be true. They have eyes but cannot see.

    Thanks for posting this and if you are blessed to have one near you – go to a Traditional Latin Mass in the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine)- it is sublime.

  • AK, English can be reverent, but there’s a natural instinct to pray in another, set-aside language. Muslims and Hindus pray in ancient languages. The ancient Jews prayed in Aramaic and spoke Hebrew; today they worship in Ancient Hebrew. I know that Armenian Apostolic rituals are in Old Armenian, and I think that many Eastern rites follow the same pattern. Even a good share of Protestants doth pray in a separate tongue. I think any attempt to bring worship into the language of the people can undermine the sense of the sacred, and these days, our sense of the sacred is in pretty bad shape.

  • Don,

    I more or less agree… but the NO services I have been to recently are getting even sillier. Sometimes I go just to see what’s going on, other times, when by my own fault or some unforseen circumstance I miss the Latin Mass and have to go to a later NO.

    Every time I go to an NO something is different. It’s constantly being tweaked and twinged, for what purposes, I don’t know.

    I don’t want to translate my preferences into objective reality, but I do believe that the Latin Mass is objectively more reverent, more conducive to spiritual growth, and more beautiful than NO. I believe that it fell out of favor precisely because of these reasons, because reverence, true spirituality and beauty have no place in a consumerist society.

    According to libertarian geniuses such as Ludwig von Mises, absolutely everything social is subjective, whether it is the value of something made in a factory or a work of art. There is no objective value, either in economics or aesthetics. Both the left and the right, such as they typically constitute themselves in America, accept this view for different reasons. The decay of the Mass parallels the decay in art.

    The assault on objective truth might find its greatest champions in the irrationalism of postmodernism but its root is in our unconscious response to the market economy, which wages an unremitting war against the very notion of sacredness. Unlike most other aspects of this phenomenon, however, the fine tuning of the Mass to appeal to spiritual consumers has continually failed.

    I don’t think consumerism has to destroy what is sacred, but I do think that it will if we are not aware of how it operates in our minds.

  • Joe,

    You hit the nail right on its head.

    Thanks for articulating your response very well!

  • Pinky,

    I agree. A Pater Noster or Ave Maria is so much more holy, sacred, reverential and satisfying than an Our Father or Hail Mary.

    May God continue to bless us with priests who seek to celebrate in the more reverential form.

    Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.

  • Joe,

    I agree with Mises on many things as pertains to subjectivity. What he misses is the objective view and the intrinsic value of created goods. Ayn Rand said she was objective but her Objectivism was all about the efficacy of man, Sola Sapiens, and her romance and love was nothing more than pornography, anger.

    Thanks in great part to you I am becoming more aware of the flaws in libertarian praxeology. I still hold that libertarian principles applied to the secular world from a Catholic perspective are valid. This will be true as regards utilitarian economics, commodities, etc. It fails, as you point out, when it comes to the objective (a perfectly subjective view for God alone). It especially fails when it comes to the sacred. Libertarian praxeology is profane and works better than any other reasonable concept in the secular world. As you point out the left/right paradigm is false because both sides, and all shades in between, accept the modernist utilitarianism. It is just as false for most of us Catholics (laity and secular clergy) to adhere so fervently to the sacred as to not be able to function in the profane world. We are in it, but not of it. Libertarian praxeology works with limits and must always keep an eye up to God, which in its current use it seldom does. We shouldn’t throw it out with all the other methods; we need to reorient it to God. He promised everyone, everything they ask for provided we seek His Kingdom first. This brings me to where you and I agree. . .

    The Mass is not a commodity or even a man made construct; however, the Church can organically develop it and the Novus Ordo is valid but it is very, very bland. Almost pointless, save for the real presence of Christ. The Extraordinary form is not only Latin. A nearby parish celebrates the NO in Latin as does EWTN sometimes. Latin is beautiful, universal (hence Catholic) and fixed; however, the beauty of the Tridentine Mass goes so much further.

    What I especially like is that the priest has so much less to ‘innovate’ and the laity has so much less external participation. I also find it very difficult to pray the NO because I feel like I am being called to externally participate every couple of seconds rendering the active participation almost impossible (perhaps that is just my hang-up) and then comes the social hour of the sign of conviviality. I pray that I am not arrogant; however, when I am at an NO Mass I just keep my hands together and my eyes close and pray for His Peace, dona nobis pace.

    I feel as though the laity at the NO has no idea that we aren’t Protestants. Moreover, with all the disparate innovation going on in the congregation and the lax manner of dress it is a wonder anyone finds it holy or can even interiorly actively participate easily. If I am not mistaken the Mass is to take us out of time and space and enter into the Sacrifice on Golgotha/Calvary – how do we do that without the sacred beauty of the Extraordinary form?

  • AK,

    “Thanks in great part to you I am becoming more aware of the flaws in libertarian praxeology.”

    Well, I’m glad I could help. It’s especially reassuring given that I am sometimes accused, by members of a different blog, for being unable to “stop thinking like an American.”

    “I still hold that libertarian principles applied to the secular world from a Catholic perspective are valid.”

    Perhaps, but as you later say, only within certain limits. America’s strong classical republican tradition was all but blotted out by the Industrial Revolution. Early America had sumptuary laws, for instance, that made luxury more expensive for the rich; this reflected a view that excessively concentrated wealth and luxury were detrimental to the survival of a republic. The founders of America had a pretty strong virtue ethic that balanced out their liberalism.

    As regards your last question: I don’t think we really can. Mass is about giving God the worship owed to Him; it isn’t a tea party. People might argue that there is nothing wrong with the Mass incorporating elements of the modern culture, as it has been done for generations. But before we can make that blanket assessment, we ought to consider what, objectively, our present culture is and whether or not any parts of it are worthy of being included in the Mass.

    I say, there aren’t too many. It isn’t really that rock music or even the vanilla piano accompaniment are inherently evil, but that they are a step down from the sublime to the common and vulgar.

    And as I pointed out to a certain writer for another blog, I don’t believe that the effects in different eras of history are comparable – yes, perhaps, in the Middle Ages they had clowns and jesters and other strange practices; they also had a universal Christian culture that played a role in their daily lives. We don’t have that today. We have a culture of hedonism, consumerism, materialism and death.

    All the more reason for us to preserve a liturgy that transcends historical epochs. Are Christians not supposed to challenge the dominant secular paradigms? Are they not supposed to stand out? How do you challenge the world with your social message when your liturgy conforms to it evermore? It is an inconsistency, I believe.

    I consider myself a true “rad trad” because I believe that Christianity ought to radically challenge secular society not only in its proclamation of what is right and wrong, but in how it worships God. When we adopt Protestant gimmicks, charismatic side shows, and the like, we aren’t challenging anyone or anything. And I think that in turn greatly diminishes the challenge that our social and moral message poses to the modern world.

  • Joe when we are attacked from all sides we are probably onto something. You and I still disagree on finer points and I am sure that the same misguided fools that attack you wouldn’t find me too appealing either. Christ was condemned for being too religious and not religious enough at the same time!

    The limits to set on a Republic based on liberal (classical) principles is The Church. Sadly, this country was founded by Masons (Luciferians) so the limits were set to be removed. About 100 years ago they were removed and the USA has degraded since and now the pace is accelerating.

    40 years ago the rubrics for the practice of the Catholic faith and the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice were loosened and instead of the Church engaging the modern world as Vatican II intended, it allowed the modern world in.

    The modern world has been assessed and found wanting. We are going back to reverence and orthodoxy. Can we take the secular country back to foundational principles and forward to the one, true faith?

  • Damian Thompson can be crotchety (the last time I checked out “Holy Smoke,” he was grousing about Halloween treat-or-treaters), but every now and then, he hits the nail on the head. (And I cut him some slack for being grumpy, because it can’t be easy being a practicing Catholic in the land of Richard Dawkins and Henry VIII.)

    The worst litugical abuse I have witnessed occurred when I was still a child and it wasn’t until years later that I realized how bad it was. It was the late ’60’s. A priest at our parish who took to VII and the counterculture with great gusto held Mass in a neighbor’s living room. He was dressed in street clothes (then still a rarity in my neighborhood) and used a torn-up loaf of whole wheat bread for the Eurcharist. A hippie folk guitarist was in attendance and sang “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore” and other such tunes.

    I remember my parents were shocked and horrified by the whole thing, and I imagine the other blue-collar WWII generation attendees were too. I recall being baffled by what to do with Communion, as I had had it pounded into my head by the nuns and my parents that one never bit the host. But it’s very difficult not to chew a big hunk of whole wheat bread. And I think that’s exactly why “Fr. Dan” used it – he wanted his parishioners to overcome fuddy-duddy taboos and get with the swingin’ ’60’s, man.

    A few years later, he left the priesthood to marry an nun who had taken to the spirit of the times with similiar enthusiasm.

  • The worst liturgical abuse I ever heard of occurred at the Newman Center of a secular university one of my relatives attended 25+ years ago; he claimed that the priest actually invoked Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez during Mass. (This particular Newman Center, however, has definitely cleaned up its act since then.)

    I have to admit, that while I like the revived interest in Latin and the greater availability of the Tridentine Mass as an alternative, I have a hard time getting too worked up about the supposed defects of the Novus Ordo. Perhaps it’s because that is the Mass I grew up with — I have absolutely no memory of ever having gone to a Tridentine Mass until I was an adult — and for better or worse, it’s the “real Mass” to me. Plus the vast majority of NO Masses I have attended have been properly celebrated and not marked by any of the grosser liturgical abuses others complain about.

    I used to work full time in a Catholic organization, and back then it was easy to be consumed with urgent life or death questions such as Communion on the tongue vs. in the hand, whether it was liturgically correct to sing first person songs like “I Am the Bread of Life,” and whether it was OK to hold hands at the Our Father. Today, however, living and working in an entirely secular “real world” environment, when I go to Mass on weekends, I’m just glad to be there. As long as the priest is a real priest, nothing that contradicts or misleads concerning Church teaching is said in the homily, everything is done according to the rubrics, and they don’t pray to Cesar Chavez, I’m OK with it.

    I hope nobody gets me wrong here, but to me, I don’t necessarily see it as a sign of virtue or piety to be overly picky or critical about what liturgy one attends — so long as it is valid and celebrated according to Church rules. Isn’t being content with what one has a virtue?

    What I am saying about being content with the liturgy one has applies ONLY to the attendees or congregation. Celebrants, on the other hand, show piety by exerting every effort to make their liturgies as “first class” and reverent as possible. There is absolutely no virtue in CELEBRATING a sloppy or rushed liturgy for no good reason.

  • Elaine,

    I grew up with NO too, minus a brief excursion my family took into the Maronite rite to connect with our roots (it ended when the only Maronite priest around left town). In all my youth, however, I never attended a Latin Mass and only had a vague notion of what it was all about.

    It wasn’t until after my decade of atheism that I discovered the TLM. The first time I heard the magnificent schola chanting was probably when I decided I wouldn’t be going back to NO. As I learned more about the TLM, and then went back and saw the NO, I was pretty sure I made the right choice. There’s just no comparison.

    It isn’t just about the tiny things you bring up, though when you add them altogether, they do make for two very different experiences. With NO, who knows if you’re going to have a reverent Mass, who knows if what they did last week will be what they do this week. In my parish, the TLM is the same every month, with alternating low and high Mass, as well it ought to be.

    I don’t think you give the liturgy the importance it is due. And why should you? It is hard to take liturgical matters seriously when the NO is the liturgy that defines your experience as a Catholic, because NO doesn’t really take itself seriously. I don’t know how to put that in a way that doesn’t sound rude, but no offense is intended.

    No, I don’t think we ought to hammer fellow Catholics over the heads with our liturgical preferences, but I do think it IS a virtue to introduce people to a form of worship that I believe is objectively more worthy of God, more reverent, more beautiful.

  • If you have not assisted at a TLM, do it with an open mind and do not focus on what is different than the NO, nor on the fact that you probably don’t know the rubrics. Just pray the Mass – you are transported to Calvary/The Last Supper/Eternity all at once – just be with Jesus.

    Also, try praying the Rosary in Latin (any good Catholic book store should have a cheat sheet in ecclesial Latin for you). Allow thirty days for it to really sink in and become familiar and you will be drawn by the beauty and majesty.

    Warning: It will become increasingly more difficult to assist at an NO.

  • Taking parts of what Elaine writes:

    …as long as…nothing that contradicts or misleads concerning Church teaching…I’m OK with it…

    such would be true enough, if only such were the case…but the Novus Ordo designers deliberately stripped the Old Mass of much of its Catholicity for the very purpose of undermining it…so as not to cause their ‘separated brethren’ to stumble over it…compare the texts of the two Masses, and note well the suppression of the traditional prayers, and look for the offending terms which doomed them to oblivion…case in point, the suppression of the lovely Psalm 42, at the beginning of Mass, due to its repeated sacerdotal antiphon ‘and I shall go unto the Altar of God’ and its response ‘to God, who giveth joy to my youth’…altars are material to the concept of sacrifice, thus the Altar of God, provides the imagery of the Divine Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the context of our worship. This is inimical to the Protestant vision, which purports the one time sacrifice of Christ and the subsequent commemoration of, but not renewal of, that event in its faith. The reference to ‘youth’ in the response again grates on the Protestant ear, inasmuch as it invokes the imagery of ‘rejuvenation’, which as Catholics, we receive through confession and absolution, a second chance as it were to lives our lives anew.
    Other instances of this suppression of Catholic thought abound, but I’ll close my post with only one other…consider the removal of the phrase ‘Mystery of Faith’ from the consecrational formula, referring specifically to the transubstantion of Christ’s Body and Blood,to a awkward proclamation after the Confection, consisting of the imagery of Christ’s death, resurrection, and the impemnding parousia…curious is it not? The designers of the NO clearly intended that the true mystical event of the Mass evolve aroung the universal Christian concept of dying and rising, and coming again, instead of the unique Catholic concept of the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist under the guise of bread and wine…I fail to see how deliberately deemphasizing the transubstantiation of the matter of the Eucharist can be called not misleading the Faithful as to the teaching of Mother Chuch…