In response to Fr. Stravinskas' notions of the Ordinary Form influencing the Ancient Rite

Good news NLM put up a critique which is probably way better then my stuff below: HERE

--------------------------------------------

Recently, Catholic World Report published an article that attempted to square the circle and identify exactly what Benedict XVI may have meant when he spoke of both “forms” needing to enrich each other. Now, I don’t know the Reverend authors intentions or his experience, but this was a seriously problematic take on every level possible; absolutely requiring a response

Adoption of the revised lectionary

Taylor Marshall has done a fantastic job addressing this: http://taylormarshall.com/2013/01/the-lectionary-of-holy-mass-one-year-vs.html http://taylormarshall.com/2015/10/catholic-mass-lectionary-omits-anti-homosexual-verses-from-romans-1.html

Incorporation of additional Mass formularies

In his book “The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy”, Adrian Fortescue addresses why the Church did not incorporate so many prefaces into the liturgy. You can click the link below to access the particulars. But also, it seams odd that here the author is so desireous of having many options, whereas later on he stresses that “Virtue stands in the middle”. I think he likes his ideas too much, making excuses and being critical of the formulation of the ancient rite when he does not have the competence to speak.

https://books.google.com/books?id=OkwmAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=mass+prefaces&source=bl&ots=0uPi9_kH1F&sig=3pU2Zi7lknu1jsE_s5WTzphuWTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyodD5k_TRAhUk64MKHWBfCHg4FBDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&q=mass%20prefaces&f=false

There is also a position paper from Una Voce on this:

http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP8_PrefaceFinal.pdf


Expand possibilities for solemnity

The EF has clearly defined categories for the celebration of Mass: Low Mass, Missa Cantata, Solemn Mass. The normative form is the Solemn Mass, wherein a full complement of ministers functions, along with incense and chant. The Low Mass (which, in the United States, unfortunately, was the most familiar and common liturgical experience) had none of those components. The Missa Cantata is an attempt to have at least some of the solemnity, even without all the desired ministers. The OF does not have such mutually exclusive categories, thus allowing for as much solemnity to be incorporated as possible. And so, even at a daily Mass with a single priest-celebrant, one can chant any and all the prayers and use incense. Regrettably, that opening is not taken advantage of very often—even on Sundays. However, it would be a good element to add to the liturgical menu of the EF.

A) The Low Mass is most common because the seminaries refuse to teach the ancient rite, so it’s the beginning point for any priest of good will. Plus, a Solemn Mass can only be said once a day by a priest. Want less Low Mass’? Encourage priests to learn and regularly say the ancient rite and to not be so obsessed with saying the “ordinary form”. Plus there is the issue of having a deacon, which is not a guarantee at any Parish, even if a second priest stands in its still rare to have two priests. Encourage vocations. We all know the current model of permanent deacons is really an ordinary form thing, whereas the societies that offer the ancient rite, the transitional deacons are way more present. The possibility for Solemnity is increasing on the ancient rite site and we know what to expect, for the Novus Ordo (outside of a handful of churches here and there) it’s a crap shoot.

B) I see no reason why we are afraid to have exclusive Mass’. When I go to a Low Mass I know what to expect and it slightly changes how I will enter into the mystery, and with the other solemnities. Having knowledge and clarity is not a bad thing. Clarity is an aspect of Beauty, formlessness is not related to beauty… consider CS Lewis’ “Till we have faces”. Plus, its not like a Low mass could not be changed to a High Mass before hand. What is listed in the bulletin is the norm (and often helpful for young families for the obvious reasons), but it can be changed with necessary considerations.

Elimination of duplicate recitations

“In the celebration of Holy Mass, the priest moves in and out of various modes: at times, he prays as one of the faithful; at other times, he prays in persona Christi Capitis… there is no theological reason for him not to pray the text in union with the whole assembly”

- What is he talking about there is no theological reason? Why do so many of these priests buy into the modernist idea that useless repetition was involved in the ancient rite? The parish and choir are invited to sing the mass at times, but this does not mean the priest should not undertake his duties to say the Mass that is put before him. His recitation is not without merit for the action. You may dislike repetition but God has no issues with hearing his word spoken again and again, anymore than God has issues with Lord have mercy said by the priest and people separately. The priest has an office separate from the laity, that they should execute the office separately when the Church has ask them to in the past is not pointless.

- Before I move on, the garbage notion that the ancient Rite had useless repetition is just that. Fr. Ripperger addressed it in an article: “The third thing that the ancient liturgy provides is repetition. Now modern man has rejected repetition because he has a fixation on novelty. Novelty, of course, gives our appetites delight but does not necessarily indicate depth. To enter into something in depth requires time and repeated considerations of a thing. Repetitio mater discendi, as we say in Latin: repetition is the mother of learning. This principle applies not only to learning but to our spiritual lives as well. By repeating a prayer, its meaning becomes more known to us and therefore is able to be entered into more perfectly and with greater depth. Since the ancient rite allows not for novelty but repetition, it provides a way in which people can focus on the mysteries present rather than the new things that are constantly popping up. With the silence quieting our faculties and the repetition that characterize each Mass, we are able to participate in and enter more perfectly into the mysteries of the Mass. Too often participation is equated with physical activity rather than the higher and more active form of participation which is spiritual participation” . Those who attend the EF will know the awkwardness of the current rubrical practice, especially when a text calls for a gesture on the part of the priest (e.g., the Sign of the Cross to end the Gloria or the genuflection during the Credo) which is not “in sync” with what is being sung because the schola/congregation have not gotten there yet. - What is this priest talking about? Awkwardness? This is a subjective take that ignores just order and proper piety. Every action has meaning so too with the two Glorias, it does not confuse those that go to the ancient rite regularly, so he is just over his head on this

Restoration of Offertory Procession and Prayer of the Faithful

“Both of these rituals were specifically identified by SC as elements to be restored. The emphasis here is on “restored”; unlike some other rites introduced into the post-Vatican II liturgy,” - Later on he will jabber about antiquarianism… he is all over the board wherever it suits his modern notion of “liturgy” these two have a venerable tradition to them. - Which ended in the 11th century. While I don’t have an issue with either I would ask how this has really impacted those that now see it in the new rite. Though slight, there is a processing of the gifts up the steps of the Altar, which is easy to see and also has the same symbolism of elevating the normal to the sacred. And if we really wanted to restore the specific tradition of the “Prayers of the faithful” I would not look at the ambiguity of the new Rite, but to the actual ancient practice as Dr. Kwasniewski describes below:

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/05/how-can-we-elevate-quality-of-prayer-of.html#.WJSlfFMrKCp


Re-order the dismissal rite

The EF dismissal rite is anti-climactic, inasmuch as the priest dismisses the congregation and then bestows the blessing, followed by the Last Gospel. The OF has a more logical conclusion, in that the “Ite, missa est” is truly the last word. Perhaps the Last Gospel could be retained as an optional text, given its historical value.

- The importance of the Last Gospel is taken up in the Fisheaters Forum:

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3444395.0


- It is also of interest that a Mexican Archbishop recently restored the Last Gospel in his diocese:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/01/mexican-archbishop-orders-last-gospel.html


Move the “fractio”

In the OF, the “breaking of the bread” occurs during the Agnus Dei, which is the quintessential hymn to the “Lamb who was slain.” The action and the text for this rite in the EF do not correspond to each other as well.

- So, it occurs just before the Agus Dei in the ancient Rite, but during in the Novus Ordo… why exactly is it more fitting they should not have distinct observations? Make clear that the homily is a true part of the Sacred Liturgy Removing the maniple and donning the biretta during the homily (along with the opening and closing Sign of the Cross) declare that the homily does not form part of the Mass; indeed, that is an “interrupter.”

- Im not sure why he wishes to call a sermon an interrupter. It would be more close to an intermission during a play. The Play does not include it among its parts, but it is observed. Outside of Sundays the Church does not demand a sermon be delivered at either rite. Saying the sermon is part of the Mass is just pure novelty. It’s nice to have, but not necessary considering the sermon can vary greatly, especially now.

- Plus removing the maniple is considered a sign of authority, not an issue of being outside Mass (see Taylor Marshall) On the contrary, the homily is an essential part of the Sacred Liturgy.

- False, its rarely said, and is not essential period.

Furthermore, if it is not such, then any baptized Christian should be able to deliver it!

- So… the Church cant bind outside the Mass… what?

Maintain the integrity of the Sanctus

When polyphonic Masses are sung, it is not unusual for the Benedictus to be separated from the rest of the Sanctus, being sung after the Consecration. This is an obvious accommodation to the problem of a musical offering that so overshadows the liturgy itself that it cannot be performed without creating an undue delay in the celebration. If a musical composition would have that effect, it certainly comes under the condemnation of Pope Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini. Beyond that, if it is being used as a “filler” for the silence after the Consecration, it flies in the face of the whole rationale for an inaudible Canon, evoking a deeper sense of mystery.

- I’m not familiar with this issue so I don’t have a take.

Adopt the rubrics of the OF for the Communion Rite

If the Pater Noster is the prayer of the family of the Church to her heavenly Father, why should not the entire congregation pray it together? Of course, Pope Benedict’s norms in SP already allow for that, however, I have rarely seen the option taken. It would also make sense to have the other prayers of the Communion Rite recited audibly or chanted aloud (as in the OF), with the priest’s private preparation prayers done sotto voce (again, as in the OF).

- Purely subjectivism which I see no reason to change anything for.

Face the people when addressing the people; face God when addressing God.

We have used this formula to justify celebrating Mass ad orientem in the OF, that is, to face liturgical east from the Liturgy of the Eucharist forward. The converse is also true: when proclaiming the Scripture readings, face those to whom those texts are addressed. Whatever the historical origins of facing east for the Epistle and facing north for the Gospel at Solemn Mass, they are not truly communicative of the significance of the rite being celebrated.

- He assumes that the scriptures are read specifically since the people are there. But if the priest says a private mass and has no audience does that mean the scriptures are not meant for the people? Of course not, but the readings are first said as a reminder to God, just as the trumpets were played in the temple not for the peoples enjoyment or learning, but as a reminder to God as to what they had received from him

- Plus in the novus ordo anyone, including prots are welcome to deliver the readings outside the Gospel… which begs the question.

- The epistle is prayed from the south because the Gospel as not been taken to the nations yet, which symbolically happens at the movement of the missal from South to North.

- The lectionary is not purely a learning device. This is creeping Protestantism, but if you do follow them and learn that is welcome, yet unneeded.

- Una Voce addresses the Lectionary in Latin in one of their position papers:

http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP16_VernacularLectionsFinal.pdf


Unite the calendars of the OF and EF

For the EF to be unable to commemorate the saints canonized since 1962 is an impoverishment—a point also raised by Pope Benedict in SP.

- Sure we can probably agree here Certain calendar changes were good (e.g., making the Solemnity of Christ the King the last Sunday of the liturgical year)

- But the feast was not meant to be an eschatological event. At the end of the liturgical year in the ancient rite we already observed this sovereignty over all in a different manner. Its not like Pius XI all of the sudden thought we were missing this, just look at the last day readings. , while others were destructive of long-standing traditions (e.g., Epiphany, Ascension). Regardless of what one thinks of either calendar (and no calendar will ever be perfect), operating with a dual-calendar system bespeaks division, the very antithesis of what good liturgy should be.

- All of this is playing off the idea that it’s a single rite… this is a weird game of denial for the sake of calming the mind with complacency.

Modify the rubrics SC calls for the modification of signs and symbols that are duplicative or arcane.

 One thinks immediately of the multiple Signs of the Cross during the Canon. Just as the OF admits of a certain laxity, the EF can lean toward an unhealthy rigidity or rubricism. In medio stat virtus! (“Virtue stands in the middle”).

- See the note on repetition above. The notions of rigidity should be a clear give away. Now follow the dog whistle.

Rename the two principal parts of the Mass

To continue to call the first part of the Mass the “Mass of the Catechumens” is a form of the antiquarianism pilloried by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei. We have not been dismissing catechumens (or penitents) for centuries (except in silly parishes where baptized Christians preparing for reception into full communion are “dismissed”).

- If this terminology was reintroduced then it would be antiquarianism, but considering it has remained in East and West without the “feeling” of it needing to be changed because (((nomenclature))), I think this is just another way to separate us from the tradition. The post-conciliar nomenclature is quite accurate: Liturgy of the Word/Liturgy of the Eucharist.

- Plus non-Catholics are still to observe the different parts of the liturgy in separate manners, so tough, it should stay on tradition alone.

When I asked Taylor Marshall his thoughts here was the response:

20% good. 80% not so much. E.g. Removing maniple is a sign of teaching authority - not "outside of Mass". https://t.co/B6AeUCy2Bx

— Taylor Marshall 🇺🇸 (@TaylorRMarshall) February 1, 2017

Fr. Hunwicke also wanted on the critique: HERE

Just an idea. Instead of seeking out someone that has been formed in the new theology and has only had limited liturgical experience in the ancient Rite, why not ask someone that daily says the Ancient Rite about what might be beneficial to it? Modernists will not rest until the ancient Rite is stripped... Thank the Lord for the ICRSS who use older books than the '62.

 

STAUP!

A few questions for Tim Staples on Fatima and the Ancient Rite

Tim Staples

I have an on and off again relationship with Catholic Answers.  There are days that I am really excited to take in their various apologetic platforms and then... well some days not.

Before I go any father I want to remind you all that Sursum Corda Milwaukee will be hosting Catholic Answers President Christopher Check on November 6th at St. Stans. The talk is open to the public and you can find more on this by clicking HERE


So the other day on Catholic Answers Live was an Open Forum for Non-Catholics and the guest was Tim Staples.  There were two specific issues that came up that continually confuse me.

1) The question of Russia being consecrated by the Holy Father and the Bishops of the Church

2) The idea that the new rite of the mass is nothing but a translation of the old and that both are equal in every aspect.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have stated in the past I don't take a specific stance on Fatima and the demands.  I indeed to believe in the events at Fatima but the poo-pooing that happens again and again is a real concern.

First we can expect huge miracles to occur (see the conversion of Mexico circa the time of the Protestant revolt)

Second the document put out by the CDF and confirmed by JPII on the third secret are probably exactly what was related by Sr. Lucia, but that does not mean that the opinion of the CSF on this particular private revelation is by no means binding on all the faithful.  Tim cant have it both ways saying that people can accept or reject Fatima because its a private revelation, but then double down saying that the CDF opinions are therefore binding on that faithful that the attempted assassination was what Our Lady warned Sr. Lucy of.  Now I'm not saying that this could not have been so, but come on its like trying to claim a definitive position on all that is in the Apocalypse of John

Third, I get it. JPII consecrated the whole world to the Immaculate Heart.  The idea is that he went beyond what was asked and therefore did some greater deed is pretty absurd.  God loves obedience to what he asks, not for us to fancy ourselves as knowers of what must really happen.  God asked specifically through Our Lady that Russia be consecrated publicly together with all the Bishops of the world to her Immaculate Heart.  Now this could have been done anytime since the revelations hit the papal office but again and again it was ignored or slightly altered for political reasons.  Saying that consecrating the world is better then just consecrating Russia doesn't jive with basic theology.  When an exorcism takes place the exorcist must call out the specific demons name (ie Russia's errors), he cannot just do a blanket I command all unclean spirits. to leave.  Just consider that.  Again I dont know, but this is not an ended prophecy even according to BXVI.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the OF and EF just being some translations of each other.  Anyone with a hand missal knows this is a joke.  Perhaps you could try and make the case that the Anglican Ordinariate's new missal is a translation of the Gregorian rite, but that is even pushing it.  Seriously we dont have to play games.  If it makes you feel good to call one the ordinary and the other the extraordinary form thats fine and dandy.  Its even ok to say that mutual enrichment needs to occur (without ever saying what is mutual that is).  But no games, one is not a translation of the other.


+JMJ+

On the Feast of Pope St. Cornelius and Cyprian, a look at the lectionary

On the Feast of Pope St. Cornelius and Cyprian

Today is a fantastic day for the Church who celebrates the feasts of two of Her early Martyrs, Cornelius and Cyprian.  I’m making a point in talking about this because it’s one of the few days where both calendars (1962 and present form) celebrate the same feast. 

I did also want to mention the readings from today’s lectionary, which though for the same feast, are wildly different than one another. As you can see:

Ordinary Form: Luke 7:1-10

When Jesus had finished all his words to the people,
he entered Capernaum.
A centurion there had a slave who was ill and about to die,
and he was valuable to him.
When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him,
asking him to come and save the life of his slave.
They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying,
“He deserves to have you do this for him,
for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us.”
And Jesus went with them,
but when he was only a short distance from the house,
the centurion sent friends to tell him,
“Lord, do not trouble yourself,
for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof.
Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you;
but say the word and let my servant be healed.
For I too am a person subject to authority,
with soldiers subject to me.
And I say to one, Go, and he goes;
and to another, Come here, and he comes;
and to my slave, Do this, and he does it.”
When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him
and, turning, said to the crowd following him,
“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
When the messengers returned to the house,
they found the slave in good health.

Extraordinary Form: Luke 21:9-19

When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

Considering that it’s a feast day for Martyrs the latter lectionary makes more sense. 

This seems to be a common issue with the lectionary since 1970 where in an effort to make more of the scriptures heard we down play the feast that is celebrated that day.  I for one don’t see the need to make more of the scripture heard, especially when doing so is really just reading the same event from a different account.  We lose the connection that the liturgy and the feast have with one another, and we also don’t learn the scriptures as well because we are on a three year cycle in the OF for readings, while on the other hand the EF boasts a one year cycle really hitting on key aspects of the faith.

Just an observation (Also why are some things like anything against homosexual behavior left out of the lectionary when we are supposed to learn more in the 3 year cycle?  Especially when they gerrymander readings in the OF?  Just saying)

Dear Patheos and Register Catholics on matters of holocaust deniers and Latin

Hi, Its good to hear that you have opinions on issues, so do I and I also have distinctions to make regading your presumptions.

First we dont go to the Extraordinary Form because we love Latin, that would be like saying you are a Christian because Jesus was a good teacher.  We love the TLM because of everything that organically became the Mass of the Saints.  Latin is great but if a novous ordo is said in Latin with all the things that were thrown together haphazardly in the 70's its still not appealing to us.  Thats not to say its not valid or illicit, of course it is, that was decided at the top level, "Rome has spoken the case is closed" after all.  I happen to go to a local Jesuit Parish which only offers mass in the ordinary form during the week so I am not against it, but I dont promote it like I do the TLM.
Its not just the Latin, but the prayers, and all the organically developed practices that make up the ancient rite which were thrown in the trash bin for whatever reason (perhaps confused ecumenism  im not sure).

Second just because a few so called traditionalists are anti-semetic doesnt mean we all must then proclaim that we are not.  Im not, but what does that matter to you? Its like saying Hitler was a Catholic and proclaimed such, therefore every Catholic must now come out of the woodwork and declare that they are against Hitler.  Ummmm, duh of course we are.  The people that are anti-semetic are the ones who push it out front like Williamson and this Gonzalez character who was referenced on Rorate.

Third the post by this Gonzalez was on the TLM in Buenos Aires which has been shown over and over again to be true.  SO what do bloggers do that dont like this info coming out say?  Well hes anti-semetic [?] so you automatically cant trust anything else.  This is not an ad hominum but a non-sequator.

There is my response,

+JMJ+

Pope Paul VI on Liturgical Reform: A Commentary

So I came across this article the other day in regards to an audience that Pope Paul VI gave on March 17^th 1965 where he attempts to go through some observations about the liturgy’s reform.  I would remind the listener here that the audience does not specifically concern the 1970 missal commonly referred to today as the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but rather it is concerned with the 1965 Roman Missal that first followed S.C. in taking advantage of proposals contained within, as well as non-conciliar proposals that found their way in.  This commentary is the first of two examining the audience from my stance, but it is only an opinion as the second will be.

Before I go any deeper I want to make it clear this video is not about bashing Paul VI or the newer versions of the mass after the 1962 missal of Blessed John XXIII.  Instead this video is to point out that indeed some of the things that are commonly thought to be mostly abuses on the part of liturgical “reformers” in fact did have the highest support for what its worth, for better or for worse.  I hope that this video will help those of you out there think critically about some of the points made, but the commentary is entirely my own opinion and open to criticism from all.

So with that let’s begin.  I have posted the original article I found this on below as well as the Vatican website full text in Italian.  Use Google translate to translate the document for your own studies.

The title of the audience is labeled: 

The participation of the faithful at Mass

Dear Sons and Daughters! [Somewhat P.C. in comparison but for what it’s worth not a big deal to me because these are informal addresses]

Our family conversation in a hearing like this, it cannot return to the topic of the day: the implementation of the liturgical reform in the celebration of Holy Mass. Our desire would be to ask you, if the public nature of this meeting not prevented, as we do in other meetings of a private nature, what are your impressions about this great news. It deserves that everyone will pay attention. Well, we think that your answer to our question would not be dissimilar to those that we reach these days.

[Notice the wording used in this audience it’s not about magersarial church teaching specifically, but more-so a father family conversation, and fairly informal at that.  After all a conversation doesn’t necessarily suppose a conclusion.  When Pope Paul asks for impressions about the news of the revised missal (1965 RM), he is, at least in my mind’s eye, rather jubilant at what is about to be discussed.  Whenever my family sits down at the dinner table and my Dad says something jovial to this effect something big is underway, as those attending the audience would later learn was in fact about to occur.  I also want to note how he asks for their impressions of the great news.  I would remind the viewer here of what happened after the revised missal came out last Advent when the people on both sides of the theological aisle where proclaiming it an objective failure to reach what was really needed for the Church.  I would also quickly remind the viewer that there is nothing wrong with having the conversation in the first place, but using such democratic terms when speaking of something so protected as the sacred liturgy over the years should concern even the average Ordinary Form goer that has some clue as to the importance of the liturgy and what it is.]

The liturgical reform? Can be reduced to two categories those answers. The first category is that of the responses noted some confusion, and therefore a nuisance: first, say these observers, it was easy, everyone could pray as she wanted, everything was known about the performance of the rite, and now everything is new, surprise , change, even the sound of the bell at the Sanctus was abolished, and then those prayers that you do not know where to go and find, that communion received standing, and the end of the Mass that ends in the trunk with the blessing, all of which meet Many moving, rituals and readings recited aloud. . ., In short, there is no peace and we understand less than before, and so on.

[I don’t know whether or not this whole issue can be reduced to two categories but I will hit that hopefully later.  It first notes that the first category is based on responses noting confusion, therefore a nuisance.  Confusion doesn't outright guarantee a nuisance by any standard.  Of course the translation could be off, but a nuisance is had when something is left unchecked to which I think part of this audience (although not seen by most of the faithful as today's are, sought to clarify the matter before the confusion developed into a nuisance.  He then delves into the concerns about the new form of the liturgy.  He mentions that the people protesting the change complain that prayer was freer, that actions in the worship were known.  In itself this is a caricature of why people were up in arms about the change, but I want to quickly hit this as spoken.  That people were freer to pray then they are now is a fascinating response.  Considering that I frequent the TLM usually about two days a week and the ordinary form about three to four days I do notice the difference that is being talked about.  When you at the Extraordinary form you can in fact (and most do) follow the missal which containing both the spoken Latin and vernacular translation and thus keep yourself focused directly on the actions visibly occurring in the sanctuary.  So too, and I do this less often, one can take the time while at the Holy Sacrifice to offer up prayers of any sort including the rosary which is so often maligned by people thinking that saying the rosary at mass is inappropriate because it disallows real focus to be had on that is actually occurring at that time.  I disagree with this thought because one can be praying at any mass in either form and not be directly focused on the very word, and also action proceeding from the one acting in persona Christi.  Just think of how many times when you hear a reading from scripture or a Eucharistic prayer your mind wanders and you miss the point of either.  Yet you hopefully were in a state of prayer when your find wandered.  See even with the vernacular we become familiar with what is said and not to say be dismiss it but it loses some of the luster that it is always to perpetuate.  Having the chance to focus your attention toward something like a set prayer like the rosary will enable the person to keep their mind always centered toward God.  What I am trying to say is that focus if centered toward the Lord is what we are expected of firstly at the Mass.  One of the things that was forgotten by ridding the liturgy of the bells is the quick response call to focus on what is about to happen concerning the very moment we are transported to Golgotha to take part in the Death of Christ.  I also wanted to make note of the non-scilant way that he brings up reception of the Blessed Sacrament standing.  Perhaps it’s the informal way the address was given but the way in which he receives us is very important.  Everything that occurs at the liturgy including our postures and our mindset speak to who God is and his expectations of his children.  I also wanted to speak to the last part of this paragraph which states: In short, there is no peace and we understand less than before, and so on.  I can actually agree to this statement of those questioning the change because there is an utter lack of silence in the mass and people are constantly called on to do something during every aspect of the mass whether sing or hold hands or motion with your hands one way or the other.  I came across a good article the other day on how silence is fundamental to the lived experience of the mass.  http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/02/21/tlm-praying-in-silence/

There is a question also as to whether we understand less than before, specifically as to whether some of the prayers now offered by the priest and faithful are somewhat ambiguous thus can lead people to misunderstand their true meaning.]

We will make no criticism of these observations, why should we show how they reveal poor penetration of the meaning of religious rites, and a glimpse not have a true devotion and a real sense of the meaning and value of the Holy Mass, but rather a certain spiritual indolence, who does not want to spend a few personal effort of intelligence and participation to better understand and better fulfill the most sacred of religious acts, to which we are invited, indeed obliged to associate. Repeat what these days by all the priests and pastors from all good teachers of religion has been saying: first, that occurs at the beginning some confusion and some discomfort is inevitable, it is in the nature of a practical reform, as well as spiritual, religious habits ingrained and widely observed, producing a little 'upheaval, not always pleasant at all, but, second, some explanation, some preparation, some will assist you soon remove uncertainty and damage the sense and the taste of a new order. Why, third, we must not believe that after some time you will return quiet and devout or lazy, as before, no, the new order will be different, and will have to stop and shake the liability of the faithful present at Mass, before enough help, now we must part, before the presence enough, now you need your attention and action, and before anyone could nap and maybe chat, not now, to listen and to pray. Hopefully soon celebrants and faithful will have new liturgical books and that these also reflect the new form, both literal and typography, the dignity of the previous ones. The assembly becomes alive and active; intervene means let the soul come into activity, attention, conversation, singing, action. The harmony of a Community act, performed not only with outward gesture, but with the inward movement of the feeling of faith and piety, the ritual gives strength and beauty special: it becomes a choir concert becomes, rhythm becomes d ' a huge flying wing to the heights of the mystery and joy of God.

[Ok so like the source I found this audience in I too find this statement to be incredibly frustrating to be nice.  First he says he is not going to offer criticism, then he attacks.  This seems to be the double mindedness that confuses so many in the church leading to perpetual nescience as he addressed before.  He then says “producing a little 'upheaval, not always pleasant at all, but, second, some explanation, some preparation, some will assist you soon remove uncertainty and damage the sense and the taste of a new order. “  Is there anyone else out there that immediately hears the Joker talking to Harvey Dent in the Hospital.  Maybe it’s just me.  I think the viewer can see the hatchet job that is about to be explained away for the sake of obtaining the sense and taste of a new order.  He then goes on and says: “after some time you will return quiet and devout or lazy, as before, no, the new order will be different, and will have to stop and shake the liability of the faithful present at Mass”.  It’s like he is speaking to children here, which many of us are liturgically speaking, but he also hits those who have a great love for the liturgy as said throughout the centuries.  I realize that maybe some people if not most people are lazy by nature but that in itself is not the fault of the liturgy but of the person.  It’s like the people that say ban guns because they kill people, and then ignore the person and why they chose to kill in the first place regardless of the means.  You see the gun like the mass ceases to be a means to salvation (death) and becomes the ends which would be our own personal disposition.  Having seen the results of the new mass since I was young I can boldly say that the innovations to shake the faithful has created a new clerical class of the laity confusing the importance of the priest, thereby calling into question his very purpose in the first place.  So too what is the deal with being quiet and devout during the liturgy.  If one’s mind is focused toward the sacrifice whether offering prayers or in song what does it mind them.  The focus should not turn inward with people so concerned that they are active that they forget the mass is said for them not because they are there.  Maybe it’s just me but sometimes you hear people say the church needs to change because if it does not they will look very foolish all by themselves.  To which I usually respond that the initial sacrifice was only attended to by those silent and devout among us (namely Mary and John and a small group of others).  He then says the following: “now we must part, before the presence enough, now you need your attention and action, and before anyone could nap and maybe chat, not now, to listen and to pray.”  If there is anything that I can’t stand its people napping and chatting and quite frankly I see none of this at the TLM and I am sure at faithful parishes with the ordinary form you don’t see this.  But the blanket statement that the new mass will somehow solve the problem is utterly frustrating.  People that nap or chat can do so whether people are supposedly expected to sing, dance or whatever, in fact try to talk at a low TLM and see the reaction of the other parishioners about.  One is either disposed toward God or he is not.  Those people were able to listen and pray before in the silence but the hyper active new liturgical movement he speaks of does lend itself to constant shifting, therefore constant confusion because people are expected to follow every aspect and if they are off they will be noticed for not being in sync.  I would note that if someone attends the TLM and is afraid of the awkwardness don’t worry most people as long as you’re not doing crazy things are calm, plus you can sit in the back.  Oh and do where something above casual because this won’t help the standing out thing if that’s your concern initially.  He then states that “The assembly becomes alive and active; intervene means let the soul come into activity, attention, conversation, singing, action.”  I want to note the obvious that action is not a merely physical aspect of ones disposition.  He specifically makes physical action the sole purpose of the liturgy.  I don’t want judge his mindset here but I do wish to call into question why he felt urged to make the statement in the first place…oh wait it was to eliminate confusion which becomes a nescience…I seem to see an opposite day pattern emerging.  “He then states: The harmony of a Community act, performed not only with outward gesture, but with the inward movement of the feeling of faith and piety, the ritual gives strength and beauty special: it becomes a choir concert becomes, rhythm becomes d ' a huge flying wing to the heights of the mystery and joy of God.” So my initial concern just brought but is calmed since he says it’s not just an outward gesture, so we can put the rifles down.  Problem solved as they say.]

Part 1 done... hope it was helpful, please dont use this as a bash piece just an honest thinking through the issues we now are dealing with.  Show your love for Peter, and his Brother Bishops with the Charity Holy Mother Church asks of us.

+JMJ+