Mass: What it should be

About a week about Fr. George Rutler wrote an On the Square article for "First Things" about the idea of Liturgical Experts. It is a dense article that many better minds than I, have tackled and extracted the more salient points from it. One of those articles comes from Fr. Longenecker on his "Standing on my head" blog.

Fr. L really hits hard from the get go in his post. As a convert from the Anglican church, Fr. L understands and sees the deepness of meaning in the Mass. To him, every word, action, and vestment has a special meaning; this should also be the case for any priest. For these reasons innovation in the Mass is something that is not only perplexing for Fr. L but strikes against the meaning and purpose of the Mass. (My emphasis in red)

The deep down stuff is what we actually believe the liturgy is for, and that goes back to what we believe the church is for, and that goes back to what we believe about Jesus Christ's work on earth and that goes back to what we believe about God. Like the Methodist who said when he learned that the ashes for Ash Wednesday are from the burnt palm crosses from the year before, "Gee, all this Catholic stuff is connected!"


If we make the liturgy all about us gathering together to have fellowship and then go out to change the world then we have not only changed the liturgy, we have changed the gospel. The core of the gospel is not some sort of protest movement or lobby for political change. The core of the gospel is about the reconciliation between God and his alienated children. Its about the forgiveness of sin. It's the old, old story of mankind cut off from God restored through the salvific death of his Son the God Incarnate. The Mass celebrates and re-animates that once for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and it is through this transaction that our hearts open first in repentance and then in faith and love to receive the life of Christ.

Have you heard this recently? Have you ever heard this? Let me tell you it isn't just his opinion. If you read Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul, John XXIII, Pius X, XI, XII, etc... they will say the same thing. The Mass is not  supposed to be (only) a teaching lesson about how we are supposed to act for the week. We are not protestant, although the modern Catholic Church tries to be for some reason, where we have a weekly theme at Mass and we are supposed to learn it and then live it... for the week. It is taking the core of the Gospel and celebrating it in a way that creates some small sliver of heaven here on earth.

A few weeks ago I posted how upset I was that more wasn't said about a ballot initiative here in Alaska. That wasn't because I buy into this idea of what some have turned the Mass into. I was not arguing that the priests around here should simply exchange one protest or lobby movement for mine. I was instead upset that what was being done at Mass was exactly that. Instead of talking about ideas central to the Faith (e.g. the sanctity of life), instead Mass, or as it is called around here Liturgy, has turned into this social justice movement cloaked in the rough form of the Mass. You see this in many parishes, the entire Mass has turned into some production about... well the people. How can I say that? Easy... next time you are at a Mass, that seems innovative ask: "Why are they doing that?" If the answer is to appeal to the congregation or to entertain, then it is wrongly conceived. Sure, you can couch things in: "We are doing this to glorify God." But, you should be able to see why things actually are occurring.

Why do we need this innovation? Hasn't 2000 years of tradition and divine revelation been enough to determine what should and shouldn't occur at Mass? Hasn't that 2000 years given us a good idea of what the Mass should be? Why then do we get some of the Masses that we do? Fr. L answers that:

The real reason so many modern liturgists turned the whole thing into a sort of hippy like protest movement is that very quietly, and usually without even being aware of it, they stopped believing the old, old story. The Virgin Birth became in their minds a charming Christmas tradition. The incarnation became a metaphor and the atoning work of Christ on the cross was dismissed as a barbaric, archaic and inaccessible part of the Christian tradition. The possibility of miracles was forgotten and the reality of sin ignored.


When all that was dropped what was left? Not much more than a milksop religion of smiling at one another and doing good works followed by sadly self righteous and earnest people who were blind to where their apostasy had taken them, and sincerely believed that they had created a new Christianity when all they had done was resurrect a bundle of old heresies.


Well, bless them. Their felt banners are frayed, their polyester vestments are faded, and all they have left are the rainbow banners of homosexual activism and the bland bleating of tired feminists whose rage, like their lava lamps, has almost burned out.

Again, this isn't one priests opinion. You can track his understanding back to what the Pope teaches about the Mass. The Pope's understanding comes from past Popes and theologians. There is continuity. What we see today stems from the 1960's and '70's when the Mass was hi-jacked by those looking to satisfy their need for religion and reconcile that with their socio-political motives. Hopefully Fr. L is right... and that has almost burned out.

Liturgical Abuses

RealCatholicTV & Liturgical Abuses

On Sunday, RealCatholicTV.com posted their most recently produced episode of CIA: Weapon of MASS Destruction. The topic was the Mass. It discussed how the new form (the Ordinary Form or Norvus Ordo)of the the Mass has been contorted and desecrated, in some places, through liturgical abuse and modernist innovation. It was a well researched episode and was done in a charitable way, so as to attack the problems, and not the Mass itself. As faithful Catholics, RCTV professes a belief in the legitimacy and authority of the Vatican II council. Yet, they expose how and why some of the changes to the Mass occurred, and how those changes were not done for the reasons stated during the Council. This area of discussion is quite dense and complicated. To have a discussion and understanding of it, you really have to have read many of the documents produced relating to Vatican II, you must understand the purpose and differences between the actions and functions of the two forms of the Mass, and must understand the doctrine and theology behind the forms of the Mass.

That being said, the the episode of RCTV's "CIA" could easily have struck people as extreme, incidndary, and rhetorical. There are many Catholics that don't realize how many liturgical abuses occur across the Church on any given Sunday. Some people have been going to Mass in the same parish their entire lives. To them, Catholic Mass is whatever occurrs in their parish. To a degree they are correct, there is rarely an INVALID Mass. This is not true when it comes to it being licit or illict, meaning that many Masses have some abuse which is therefore illicit. But what exactly does that mean? How do we know? Sure there are rules, but are they important?

Some Liturgical Abuses...

So what are Liturgical Abuses? Should this matter? Aren't we just nitpicking at priests, none of us are perfect so why should we expect priests to be perfect? Well... perfection isn't necessary, or even expected. The problem isn't the lack of perfection, but instead the problem is when priests, lay ministers, and pastoral councils construct liturgies with innovation and invention.


If you want to know more here are some links, with documentation and support:

• Common and Serious Abuses - with corresponding Church Law
• 10 Most Common Liturgical Abuses from Catholic Answers
• From EWTN
• TAKE A QUIZ on your awareness of liturgical abuse
• Paul VI saw liturgical abuse as "Smoke of Satan"
• Fr. John Trigilio Takes on U.S. Catholic over Latin Mass
• Source: Totus Tuus Family & Homeschool Blog

Why it matters

Some of you may still be reading, and yet asking yourself: "Why does this stuff matter? As long is it isn't too egregious, aren't we focusing on the negative, and being distracted by this at Mass?" My answer, as well as the Pope's and many other Catholic Theologians would be: "It does matter, because the Mass is the worship and participation in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus." Our faith is what it is, because of the certainty and TRUTH, upon which it rests; eg The Word made Flesh. Therefore, strict adherence should be made to the precepts of the Church.

On a practical level, every erosion eats away at the core and substance of Catholicism. The Mass is the pinnacle of our faith. It separates us from all other Christian religions because in the Mass we are able to participate in the Mystery of the Eucharist. Why would we want to mettle with, and become innovators to actions which could possibly distort or detract from that which Jesus himself instituted? This isn't about style or preference, but about reverence and worship. Learn the Mass. Learn the Rubrics. We become more faithful and stronger Catholics when we know the "Why" behind that which we do.

Genuflecting

Genuflecting is important. Why? Well as Father Hardon once said:

“If you cannot bend the knee to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, you cannot bend your will to God's will.” 

•Source: Badger Catholic

º•][•º

Want to know more about genuflecting, read: New Advent - Genuflecting

Musica Sacra... Thoughts on Catholic Music

Today is the 3rd anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. That being said, I want to discuss one of the key factors which draws me to Mass in the Extraordinary Form: The Music, specifically Gregorian Chant and Polyphony.

Ironically, I can't carry a tune in a bucket. Yet, I have always been drawn to music. I spent hours making "mix tapes" - kids think iPod play list, but much more time intensive, and all based on the "luck of the draw" depending on what was played on the radio. I love making "Soundtracks" for various events, periods of time, and supplying music for things such as retreats. So, music has always drawn me in.

When I was younger and attended Protestant worship service, I loved the singing. It made more sense to me than some guy standing up front telling me what he thought about the Bible. (Even then I knew I wasn't built to be Protestant.) I went through phases, some were less glamorous than others.  (Blaring Michael W. Smith's "Secret Ambition" seems cool when you are 12 and on fire with the faith, but it isn't.)

Eventually I started attending Catholic Mass, and again the music drew me in. Don't get me wrong, I am forever warped and have a special place in my heart for Christian Pop, especially harder Christian Rock, but those that live in glass houses shouldn't judge people with cheesy guilty pleasures. But the music at Catholic Mass took me to a new place. I distinctly remember a Mass during my junior year of high school, that to this day I view as one of my "looking back, I realize now, that I knew then" moments.

It was that day, that I heard the Sanctus and knew that I would be fully initiated into the Catholic Faith one day. (It only took 10 more years.) But it was the Sanctus in high school, and the Ave Maria. I remember more or less demanding that it be played at my Grandfather's funeral. I wasn't a practicing Catholic yet, in fact, I had just journeyed back to attending Mass at the time, but I knew it was a necessary element of his funeral, and boy am I glad that my naivety was correct; I am positive that it was the Holy Spirit, and not my own intelligence that pushed for it.

As I attended Mass more and more, and went through RCIA, I liked the music that I knew. It didn't matter what the words were, as long as it had some personal meaning to me. Songs like... wait for it, On Eagles Wings, were some of my favorite because I knew them, they were familiar, and they symbolized the Mass to me. But like every other "phase" I had gone through in my faith, I soon understood that there was more to the music than familiarity and pop appeal. There was a purpose to the lyrics and the style.

All this being said, as I started to study my faith, and learned that the Mass wasn't about me, but about God, I started to realize that the music I liked, that I often "grew out of" quickly, because it seemed juvenile and silly, was probably twice as trite and foolish to be used as a way to worship and praise God. Anything that sounded like it should be sung by a guy in a polyester-shoulder-padded sport coat, ankle biter jeans, and a mullet, probably wasn't the best type of music to have at Mass.

I didn't really know what the "right" type of music was. I went to a parish for a while that had a very interesting Music Director. We sang more spanish than latin, and more Haas and Haguen than Aquinas. So what was GOOD music for Mass? Well, I finally got my answer when I wound up at a parish with an organ. I also learned it at my law school, where we had something called a Schola. As I learned songs like Immaculate Mary, Panis Angelicus, and the Agnus Dei something began to click. It made sense. Music wasn't a fad, entertainment, or for my liking it served a purpose at Mass just as everything else did. Sure bringing in a rock band might draw teens to a Lifeteen Mass, but did it draw anyone closer to the Sacred? I wasn't sure, which wasn't a good answer to me. I realized that we SHOULD be sure what we are doing, especially with music, draws us to the Sacred.

When I went to my first Mass or two, celebrated in the usus antiquior, they were the Missa Cantata. A form of the Mass that is SUNG. I attended these at St. Josaphat's Church in Detroit. I was in AWE. I felt as if I never wanted to go to a Mass again, where songs sounded like something that appeared on a children's TV show with a giant purple dinosaur. But was this vanity? Was this me desiring something for myself? I struggled with this question for a long time. I feared that I was less concerned with what God wanted at Mass, and more what I wanted. Maybe this was about preference and not reverence.

That all changed at my wedding. As we went over music, with an amazing music director, I made the comment, "I want music that makes sense to the CELEBRATION, I don't want the typical because it is what people expect. I want the music to make sense within the Mass." His response was, "I am glad you are taking this so serious, most people don't." He almost had to force us to leave, because I was being so particular. It was then that I realized that my desire for proper music was in the very least rooted in some proper theo-philosophy.

Since moving to Alaska, the music situation has been much of the same. We use the Heritage Missal, as do almost all parishes in Alaska. It is pretty difficult, week after week to sing many of the songs. This is a VERY contemporary Missal/Hymnal and so it has very modern sounding music. Every week I hear songs, that when run through a theological filter, don't make sense to me. Yes, I know they are approved, but that doesn't mean anything. We have lots of Bishops, Priests, and Nuns that run around saying and doing things contrary to the teachings of the Church and they too are, "approved." That being said, I sing... not loud, as I am pretty tone deaf, but I sing, and I pray. I pray that next week we will have a good song to sing, and until then, the song I am singing will be made good through our prayer and love of God.

As a parting note, several blogs recently have written posts about music that I wish to share with you. They all lend something a little different and are worth checking out.

First, Fr. Longenecker has written and entire SERIES on Music. You can find them here:

• Church Music
• Church Music - 2
• Church Music - 3
• Church Music - 4
• Church Music - 5

The series is a MUST READ! He starts with an over-view on what makes a good Hymn, and dives deeper in the the musical selection, quality, style, lyrics, and purpose of music at Mass. Again, this is a must read. He sets up the series with a bang, and it really is a non-stop ride from that point on. Here is part of his intro:

"What people don't seem to realize is that there are actually some criteria for choosing good hymns. The fact that so many of the hymns in our Catholic hymnals are terrible musically, heterodox theologically, contain execrable poetry, maudlin sentiments and trashy pop psychology doesn't help. People need to learn that just because a hymn is published doesn't make it good. Furthermore, just because it's popular doesn't make it good."

 The Anchoress also has written about music lately. One of her latest posts concerns, "The Ten Worst Hymns?" She takes on the task of figuring out what the worst of the worst are. She has her own picks, but her main task is to direct us to Joe Carter, who put the list of 10 down, for all to see. She also links to Deal Hudson who did a similar project last year.

Now for those that think this is uncharitable, The Anchoress argues that "we must continue to complain until they stop [using these songs.]" So it isn't about preference, but a battle for the reverential place of music within the Mass.

I know this post was long, but I hope you learned something along the way, came to realize that we are all on a journey of knowledge and understanding, and that it is okay to re-evaluate our preferences and understanding of the place that music has in the Mass.

Mass becomes 'perverted' when 'community celebrates itself.'

A big Sword-dub (h/t) goes to: Christine at A Catholic View on this story:

Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, made some very important and powerful statements about the way in which Mass should and shouldn't be celebrated. It isn't as long as it seems... PLEASE, PLEASE read this... 

(My emphasis and comments):

The Cardinal expressed sadness over the fact that often, the Mass is “reduced to a mere banquet, a celebration of the community,” instead of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He noted that “Worship becomes perverted when we have a celebration in which the community celebrates itself.” [This isn't a "feast" or celebration of us, it is the actual 'once for all' sacrifice that we, through the grace of God, participate IN.]

The prelate added that the primary focus of the Mass should be God.

...~~~...

Cardinal Canizares also underscored the centrality of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, saying that oftentimes, the Mass is “reduced to a mere banquet, a celebration of the community, a commemoration, but not the very sacrifice of Christ who gives himself up for us on the Cross.” [It isn't simply a COMMEMORATION. It isn't a community celebration. It is the VERY SACRIFICE OF GOD... continual, but once for all.]


“Without this we can understand nothing about the Eucharist and we celebrate nothing more than ourselves,” he said. [In other words: if we as parishes - the Body of Christ - don't celebrate Mass in this way... we are simply celebrating ourselves. How would you answer the question: "Explain, specifically, how the WAY IN WHICH your parish celebrates the Mass, is focused on God?"]


“We have become secularized and convinced that everything has been the result of our own creativity,” [Read: Modernism in: Music, Dress, Church Design, Lack of Sacred Objects, the Abrogation of Incense, Bells, Chant, Statutes, Stain Glass, etc...] the prelate remarked. However, what truly matters is that “we recognize the mystery, that the mystery be celebrated. We must remember God’s right. God tells us how the mystery, how the celebration should be carried out.” [AMEN! But do we listen...]


After underscoring the spirit of renewal proposed by Vatican II, Cardinal Canizares noted that the council fathers placed a priority on liturgical renewal because “we cannot understand (the Vatican II document) Gaudium et Spes if our understanding is not based on the foundation for everything: the Eucharist.”


“There will not be a Gaudium et Spes Church if it is not a Sacrosantum Concilium Church,” he added. For this reason, the Pope has a great interest in the liturgy. For this reason, when renewal is understood merely in terms of changes to the rite, we do not understand anything that the Holy Father is telling us,” he added. [What he is saying is that renewal is not just about actions... it is about mindset. If we change the actions, and the mindset changes, a la moving away from a focus on God, we have lost the purpose of the renewal.]


“Renewal does not mean a different puppet show every day,” the cardinal underscored. [This is HUGELY IMPORTANT: As a Cardinal, he supports Holy Mother Church, Vatican II, and the teachings of the Faith. That does not mean that he supports what we necessarily HAVE in the Church, i.e. a "different puppet show every day."] “It means making it possible to celebrate the mystery of faith that occurs. This renewal must express the entire reality of the mystery. Worship becomes perverted when we have a celebration in which the community celebrates itself. The principle should be that God occupies the central place.”


The Spanish prelate noted that in Communion, it is not we who assimilate Christ, “but rather He who assimilates us unto himself,” and consequently we are pulled out of our individuality. “Thus the Eucharist takes on a social nature.” [NB: This relates to my former posts about kneeling. While some argue that standing after Communion allows us to be united with our brothers and sisters, it seems the Cardinal is saying that WE do nothing to assimilate Christ. That our individuality does not and should not matter. Instead, the Eucharist itself is takes on a social nature outside of anything that we can do.]


“To celebrate the Eucharist is to bring about the renewal of society,” he said. “For this reason, renewing the sense of the Eucharist is what guarantees a future for the Church. This is the true danger for a humanity that does not acknowledge God.”

Source: CNA

I think this is very important article. This is why I have a problem with TEEN Masses, Children's Masses, and other "Production Style" Masses. It isn't that I don't think that configuring the Mass to be better understood by certain groups within a community is an appropriate goal, I think what happens is that the focus becomes THE GROUP, instead of GOD. The Mass needs not be relevant to anyone but GOD. Some may argue, "But how do we get them to understand and appreciate the Mass?" Not by turning it into a "puppet show," both figuratively and literally. Instead, we must expose them to the Truth, the teachings of the Church.

We must also examine how we as lay faithful, and even the clergy, prepare our hearts and minds for Mass. We must attend Mass and worship at Mass with the right mindset. We must also construct our Masses in a which celebrates the MYSTERY of the EUCHARIST in a God-centric way. We must restore the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels of the faith, in an authentic way, that is centered on God and not ourselves. This is why I don't clap during a Mass... because then we are only celebrating ourselves; applause is a gesture of the celebration of Man, God doesn't require applause, he requires worship and devotion.

Kneeling - Redux

I made a post last week about Kneeling. As is the case with many posts, it was more of an attempt at thinking something out, as opposed to being an authoritative statement on a belief I hold. Mindyleigh, of The Devout Life added some great thoughts to the overall discussion.

So I decided to re-read the section on kneeling in The Spirit of the Liturgy - by then: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. One part really stuck out, and seems to sum up the way I think about kneeling. It might not specifically answer the "Why of kneeling" but it strikes at the core of its importance.

Pope Benedict, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"...for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself."

I think this passage is quite clear. This is not to say that standing is necessarily inappropriate, especially at the direction of the Bishop. Instead, it is a justification for those that do kneel. In fact, it comes in the form of a mandate that we DO kneel, when appropriate, and that if kneeling has been abandoned in total, it should be reclaimed.

I know in our Archdiocese, standing has been implemented after the reception of communion as a means to unify the community. This should not be reason for individuals or congregations to abandon kneeling altogether, and unfortunately, this is the casualty of this directive. I have only seen one other parish where the Bishop diverged from the GIRM in this manner, and the same result occurred. Folks would return to the pews and either sit immediately, or stand and then EVERYONE would sit.

This wouldn't be such a big deal except when one row sits, the row behind cannot easily kneel. As a kneeler, I dont mind it so much... but I cannot say the same for the people in front of me that make a face, noise, or action that displays their displeasure. As the Pope wrote, "we must seek to remain...in union with Jesus Christ." I can think of no other time more appropriate to posture ourselves in such a way to physically create such a union, then immediately following the reception of the Body and Blood of Angels, the Eucharistic True Presence of God.

Having said that... it is a difficult thing to kneel at the reception of communion, when the GIRM creates a different norm for the United States and when it allows for a Bishop to change the post-communion posture. Such allowances create an uncomfortable situation for many. Any change is difficult... but I can tell you this... there is an easy solution...

Bring back Altar Rails.
When folks approach, they kneel. If they cant kneel they stand. If they can't walk up - an EMHC will bring them the Precious Body and Blood.
What changes? Those that can... kneel.
When folks return to the pews... have the GIRM say, stand of kneel until all receive the Eucharist. Then... sit or kneel... problem solved. 

Until then where should we look for guidance? Rome would be a good place... 

The Holy Father's reasoning is simple: "We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God." (May 22, 2008)


According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. "Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today" (May 22, 2008)

CNS STORY: Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

Clerical Whispers: Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

Vatican Newspaper Article Says Catholics Should Receive Communion ...

YouTube - Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue is Preferred Form ...

etc...

Active Participation - A misinterpretation

One of the biggest sources of confusion about the Mass that came from the writings of the Vatican II council is the phrase: "ACTIVE PARTICIPATION."

Well... the Seditious Catechist over at Ten Reasons has juxtaposed the intended meaning with the interpreted meaning of the phrase and shows how problematic it really is.

What the universal Church teaches:

Yet we must not overlook the fact that some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of this participation. It should be made clear that the word "participation" does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration. In fact, the active participation called for by the Council must be understood in more substantial terms, on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relationship to daily life.

What the local Church does:

"They feel a sense of ownership. They know it's their Mass," Sauter said, noting that the students love attending the 5:30 p.m. liturgy in which they actively participate as lectors, altar servers and extraordinary ministers of holy Communion.

The 10 Reasons blog is quickly becoming a daily read, especially as I become more interested in Cathechetics. I think this post succinctly highlights the misinterpretation of the phrase "Active Participation." We need to correct this mentality, and let go of such personalized importance.

A desire for the Sacred

One of the weakest arguments that I have heard from the anti-extraordinary form Mass camp is: that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, aka the Tridentine Mass, isn't the most ancient or even that "good" of a Mass and therefore folks that support it or desire it... are simply jumping on a bandwagon. They accuse devotees of the Extraordinary Form of being "Rad Trads" or Radical Traditionalists, meaning that they believe folks who desire this form of the Mass are simply being Catholic Elitists.

This is an unfair, uncharitable, and incorrect assumption on the behalf of these accusers. In fact, most folks that desire the Mass in the Usus Antiquior do so because they feel disconnected from the Sacred, while celebrating the Mass at their parish. Many who attend the EF Mass don't do so out of pride, an eclectic affinity for latin, a particular fondness for the theological meaning of the rubrics of that Mass, or anything complicated like that. Instead, many folks are simply desiring the Sacred.

Although the Mass isn't about us, our attendance and worship at Mass is our chance to encounter the Sacred. It is the source and summit of our Christian life, and is a small slice of "Heaven on Earth."  Therefore, many people simply want the experience to be as close to the Sacred as possible. In the modern American Catholic Church, one can find themselves in a church built less than a decade ago, lacking stained glass, statues, icons, tile, confessionals, pillars, incense, traditional music, or any other traditional features that once created the "setting" of the Mass. I would argue that Catholicism is the SINGLE christian "denomination" that can appeal to all of the human senses, and yet rarely do we find a Mass that partakes in the traditions that appeal to all the senses... except in the Usus Antiquior.

When the Motu Proprio in 2007 was published, many Bishops explained that it was not in fact a set of doors thrown open, signaling a resurgence in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. Instead, they spoke of how "complicated" the rubrics were and how many parishes were not designed for "this type of Mass." They spoke in terms of complexity and a fear that many would seek to justify the means with an end. Ironically, this is in fact how many see the Ordinary Form nowadays in their parish. With liturgical abuse run rampant, theologically incorrect homilies, and protestant music run amok, it is no wonder that folks desire a form of the Mass that strives for the Sacred.

There is something to be said to the fact that whenever a parish offers the EF, families flock to it in droves. They flock to a Mass that isn't in our native language, that doesn't offer a "role" for throngs of the faithful, where the priest "doesn't face the people", and various other attacks that are often placed upon the EF. Its popularity comes from a desire for the Sacred. Bishops and priests would do well to learn from this, rather than fight against it. A perfect opportunity exists with the new missal translation. Things will change with its implementation. Bishops should seize that opportunity and reclaim the Sacred. Not for the people, not for popularity's sake, but for the fact that God is deserved of our attempt at creating the Sacred in our churches and he is deserved of sacred worship.

The GIRM, Diocesan Norms and Kneeling at Mass: Archdiocese of Anchorage

All postures at Mass are purposeful. They bring us closer to the Sacred through their purpose and proper place in the Mass. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) is the controlling document on all actions and functions of the Mass. There are in fact specific sections that concern the gestures and postures that the faithful should adhere to:

Movements and Posture
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

One of the most discussed and misapplied postures is that of kneeling. The confusion usually occurs after the Agnus Dei because there is a Diocesan option available, that when used, is often misused and even abused. The GIRM states:

43(c) : In the dioceses of the United States of America, they [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

The final clause in this section is where confusion and abuse generally set in. Bishops do have the ability to  change the posture for this period, so we have to look to what the Bishop directs in this instance. In Anchorage, the Bishop has opted to diverge from the GIRM:

• Upon completion of the Holy Holy until after the Great Amen: KNEEL
• From the beginning of the Lord's Prayer and continuing as each receives Holy Communion (may bow head to venerate the Holy Sacrament) STAND
• Upon return to pew following reception of Communion: STAND
• After all ahve [sic] received Communion during sacred silence following Holy Communion: SIT or KNEEL

What is confusing is that in most Parishes that I have been to in Alaska, no one actually kneels during the Sacred Silence, if in fact there is a Sacred Silence. So the question becomes whether a person should adhere to the GIRM, which isn't the norm for the Archdiocese and therefore against the norms; or should the faithful adhere to the Diocesan Norms which aren't adhered to by the faithful? 

I personally find myself conflicted. After coming from an Archdiocese where the GIRM was adhered to strictly, I find myself in discontinuity with the rest of the faithful in my Parish. After researching the Archdiocesan norms, I find that in fact, if I were to unify myself with my Parish, I would be out of step not only with the GIRM, but the Diocesan Norms, which although valid and licit, are not adhered to. So what am I, and other faithful to do? This is only one example of discontinuity.

Hopefully, with the introduction of the New Missal, as Parishes will necessarily undergo the need to provide Liturgical Catechesis, these problems will be addressed and rectified. Although I am under no illusion that unification of posture and gestures at Mass will themselves create an authentic Catholic community, it is in fact impossible to have such a community without continuity and unification as to the GIRM. 

Cardinal Arinze on Kneeling, Communion, and Reverence

If you want a quick little lesson on such things... head over to Cleansing Fire.

The Cardinal explains what is appropriate regarding such topics...a CARDINAL.

No Blessings at Communion - Abp. Chaput

This is done at my parish, and I have seen it done at others. Archbishop Chaput, who is usually dead-on accurate with his take on... oh just about everything explains why the idea of "blessings" at Communion time are improper because of both context and Catechetical reasons.

Taken from Beliefnet.com:

"As members of the community move forward to receive holy Communion during Mass, parents will often bring their small children along. Over the years, it has become a custom in many parishes for these children to receive a blessing. I don't really know where this practice began, but it's worth some reflection.


"Usually the children in line will look up expectantly at the person distributing holy Communion. The minister then responds by doing one of several things: He or she may pat the child's head, or touch the head in a sign of blessing, or mark the child's forehead with a sign of the cross. As warm and well intentioned as the gesture may be, in the context of the liturgy, the Communion procession really isn't the time for a blessing of children or adults who are unable to receive Communion.


"There are times in the liturgical year when the laity assist in specific acts of blessing, such as the blessing of throats or the distribution of ashes. These are clearly indicated in the Book of Blessings. But extraordinary ministers of holy Communion do not ordinarily have a commission to bless in the name of the Church, as priests and deacons do. At this point in the liturgy, they have a very specific function: to collaborate with the clergy in the distribution of holy Communion.


"As we'll explore in a later column, the blessing of the assembly properly occurs at the end of the Mass. As the body of Christ, the assembly is blessed together before we depart to live the fruits of the liturgy.


"What would be appropriate for children to do who accompany their parents in the Communion procession, and adults who do not receive Communion?


"The Communion procession is an opportunity for parents to begin to teach their children about the great gift of the Eucharist. First of all, children could learn to give reverence to the Lord hidden under the forms of bread and wine. Children can already learn from their parents, and others receiving holy Communion, to give honor to the Lord by bowing reverently.


"Parents and catechists should start teaching the mystery of the Eucharist at an early age. Children will soon begin to desire to receive holy Communion. This earnest desire to receive our Lord sacramentally is traditionally called a 'spiritual communion.' Regrettably, we don't talk about spiritual communion as we once did. But Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and many other great saints strongly encouraged spiritual communion as a practice.


"Both children and adults can make a spiritual communion. They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, 'Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.' This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.


"This spiritual communion would more authentically carry out the spirit of the liturgy. Being faithful to the truths of the sacramental celebration allows all of us, young and old, to enter more deeply into worship."

This was taken from EWTN.com: Blessings for Non-Communicants. The full piece has much more as to why this isn't a proper practice, nor the proper time. As I have been discussing in my: "We must seek the Sacred" posts, children are very perceptive. They are sponges and soak up everything. Not only are children this way but so are adults. When we do something consistently we create a way of being, and people will begin to construct in their head, even subconsciously, an explanation as to why things are done a certain way.

Here are some snippets from the full piece, which are written by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University:

"My most serious hesitations, however, stem from a fear that, over time, the practice of giving blessings to non-communicants could create a new perception or mentality regarding Communion itself that makes it somehow equivalent to a blessing, thus weakening the special value that Communion should have for Catholics. This danger could be especially present in a school environment with a high proportion of non-Catholics who receive only a blessing. On the other hand, some priests have mentioned that it can lower the danger of sacrilegious communions in predominantly Catholic schools as children and adolescents find it easier to ask for a blessing than to stay (alone) in their pews."

"From what has been said above I would suggest that you avoid ritual gestures that might cause confusion, especially to the Catholics present. However, the formulas provided for the extraordinary ministers of Communion in the ritual for Communion outside of Mass could also be used in the presence of non-Catholics. They usually have a third person plural formula such as "May the Lord bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life."


If you wish to offer some spiritual activity to all present beyond the Communion service, then, with the permission of the parish priest, you could offer some acceptable common prayer once the Communion service has been finished — for example, praying an hour of the Divine Office, which is almost totally scriptural, would be one possibility."

"I also see no pastoral advantage in using it for children before their first Communion. A child who observes parents and siblings approaching the altar should have a greater sense of hope and desire to be able to participate just as they do.


As we mentioned before, a blessing in this case could even weaken the awareness of the greatness and uniqueness of holy Communion. It can also cause pastoral problems insofar as it is an easy custom to introduce but, once in, very difficult to renege upon, due to parental sensitivity."

Obviously this isn't the worst thing to alter the Mass that has been seen, but we need to create continuity and purpose of action. Otherwise we are changing our faith and changing the meaning of the external and physical symbols of the Mass, the summit and pinnacle form of Worship that we have. We wouldn't allow this in our sports, why do we allow it in our religion.

A note from the Pontifical Mass at the Basilica

For those that want to witness the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but cant make it to a church that  celebrates it, or if you would like to LEARN about it via a "play by play" - the Pontifical Mass at the Basilica of the National Cathedral is on EWTN right now.

As I am watching, the priests giving commentary said something vital to our understanding of the Mass. They were explaining how viewers not familiar with the Mass in the usus antiquior might be confused about all the extravagant and complex rituals that occur in the older Mass. The striking and important comment that they made about it was:

We have to remember that none of this [the rituals at Mass] is about us, but the Mass is all about God.

“Creative liturgy… alienates us from God and draws us near to sin.”

Rorate Cœli posted an interview of Msgr. Nicola Bux where he discusses the concept of "Creative Liturgies." The title of this post is his main point, the rest of the interview is just as important:

“Creative liturgy… alienates us from God and draws us near to sin.”  

Here are the excerpts (My emphasis and comments) :

“Creative liturgy… alienates us from God and draws us near to sin.”

Then, not too surprisingly, he affirms: “The sense of sin has been weakened by the dilution of the sacrality of the liturgy. [This is a critical point. If the Liturgy is the pinnacle of our faith, then when we dilute it, we allow ourselves to rationalize other areas of our belief.] There is a close link between ethos and worship.” What do you mean? “That we today have lost values because we often do not give God a worthy worship at Mass. [This idea stems from the philosophical precept of absolute truth. If there exists, which we must believe there does, a sense of WORTHINESS which God deserves, then we must strive to find the type of worship worthy of God.] And many atheists ought also to live as if God exists.” (E molti anche atei dovrebbero vivere come se Dio esistesse) But let us return to the liturgical aspect: “People need the sense of the sacred in order to discover God. Sin is a negation of God, but if even when assisting Mass we live far from God, how is it then possible to avoid sin?” Then he specifies: “The liturgy is sacred, divine and glorious; it is vertical in the sense of tending towards the High, towards Beauty and Heaven. It is not something circular or horizontal, some kind of sports stadium, assembly or party. [We should treat it as something unique and UNLIKE anything else we do.] The idea of a fruitful and creative liturgy inevitably loses the sense of the sacred and therefore alienates us from God and draws us near to sin. [The Mass... must be SACRED... nothing else is necessary.]The people, who are much more intelligent than one gives them credit for, perceive where the sacred is. It is not something abstract but a concrete thing. [The Sacred is attainable.]And it says so in the Gospel. "The woman wished to touch the cloak of Christ. In order to defeat sin, there is a need for certain, unequivocal and firm signs, not fluctuating, unstable ones.”


Therefore creative liturgy creates damage: “Many, especially after the Council, ceded to this unhealthy notion of creativity, but it was not the fault of the Council, as the Council never abrogated or cancelled the liturgy of all times (liturgia di sempre). A sloppy, manipulated and -- even worse – violated Mass is an obstacle to the sacred and alienates the people from the Church. To celebrate creative Masses is a profanation of the sense of the sacred, because it brings us away from God. The minister of the cult must never be an actor, often a mediocre one at that and a source of scandal, but should think that his principal duty is to serve God, never his own unbridled desire to play the protagonist. [A commentator on Rorate explained by saying that creative liturgies celebrate the talents and accomplishments of MAN. A good point, and one to which we should heed. Our actions at Mass should be directed towards and CONCERNING God, not the talents of humans.]Only by recuperating or restoring a correct vertical liturgy, can we limit in part the effects of sin, thus rediscovering God.”

This interview is quite telling. Father Bux is a consultor for the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff. So that means he is charged with ensuring that Masses involving the Pope are Sacred and Proper. If not him, who then should we listen to?

When we attempt to put our own influence on the Liturgy - the Mass we have incorrectly shifted the proper focus of the Mass to us instead of on God. Things like video screens, "alternative music", dance, presentations, or anything not found in the Roman Missal are "Creative." When we "distract" folks from the Mass we draw them towards the "Creative" and away from God. This means that people are being pushed away from God and towards.... well does it matter at that point?

First Communion

A group of children in our Parish will be receiving their First Communion on Sunday. Please keep them in your prayers. I am sure this will be the case in many churches in the next few weeks and months - so let us pray...

Hopefully this means more Warriors of God... and not lukewarm, "open minded" spiritualists. We cannot allow our faith to be watered down any more.

In that line of thinking... this photo makes me happy every time I see it:

Father Cory Sticha: 'We are Church? No!'

Father Cory Sticha recently blogged about the Chrism Mass in his local Archdiocese. He was a little surprised at the songs that were chosen for the Mass. The words seemed to send a confusing, if not improper, message to those at the Mass. (You can read his entire post here: "We are 'Church?' NO!").

What really struck me about his post though was the conclusion. The majority of the post was about music and its relation to Mass. He talks about how the focus of the music, and really everything, at Mass should be on God and not on us as people or the congregation. Here are his concluding paragraphs:

When we do place our focus on ourselves, the most important thing about the Mass becomes what I “get out of it”. If I’m not affirmed, uplifted, interested, etc., then something needs to change in order to fulfill me. This is why there’s so much concern about making the Mass “relevant”. Priests change the words and actions of the Mass to what they feel makes it more “relevant” to the people. Music is written in popular styles so that it will be “relevant” to youth. The Mass becomes religious entertainment seeking to help people find something that they will “get out of it”.

Conversely, when the focus is on Christ, the Mass becomes more about each one of us individually, and the congregation as a whole, gathering to worship and adore God, and what we “get out of it” is receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. A properly celebrated Mass with chant will lift our minds and hearts to God, helping us to worship our Creator and Father who loves us and gave His Son so that we might love Him in return.

(N.B.: This is why I will never ad-lib the Mass. The role of the priest is to lead the congregation to Christ, not himself.)

To solve this problem, both priests and laity need to actively work at redirecting our focus back on Our Lord and off of ourselves. If chant is not an option due to lack of training or materials, hymns need to be chosen carefully that center on God. Priests need to stop making up their own words and actions, and start following the principle “Say the Black, Do the Red“. All of us who gather for the celebration of the Mass need to remember that the honor and glory needs to go to Christ, not to ourselves.

This is an important way to look at not only the music at Mass, but our mentality in general. We must redirect our focus at Mass back on to Our Lord. Why else are we there?


-Posted by: Joe

Laetare Sunday

Tomorrow is LAETARE SUNDAY... which means that the color ROSE [NOT PINK] can be used liturgically. Although I know my church wont.

Will yours?

Read more about LAETARE Sunday and Rose here:

It's a Rose Colored Sunday

-Posted by: Joe

Double Consecration Questions from WDTPRS? (Father Z.)

I laughed out loud when I read this from a recent post on "WDTPRS?":

I don’t recommend that you kneel in the pews asking God to "disappear" the Host. The priest, on the other hand….

This comment was part of Father Z's answer to someone asking about a "Double Consecration." It really does add to the past two posts on the blog:
 Body v. Bread
"Bread" of Christ?!

Father Z. seems right on in this case, and of course is backed up by his research and the rubrics.

Read the Full Post here:
Is Double Consecration allowed at Mass? - WDTPRS? (Father Z)


-Posted by: Joe

Body v. Bread

So Brian's post below made me think about the idea of the Real Presence of Christ, or TRUE PRESENCE as it is rightly called. It is a topic that I have posted about before, and one that I think needs more focus in Catholic circles outside of the Blog-world.

If you confine your reading and learning about the faith to solely Catholic blogs, you will find most traditional or orthodox Catholics truly believe in the True Presence. Outside of such cirlces the story is quite different. You may encounter many that SAY they believe in it, but like most things in life actions speak louder than words.

Now before I go on I must state that this is not a post about the way in which one MUST act, or some sort of test to determine a persons belief, it is instead a series of observations to illustrate a point. The point is that many Catholics do not act in a manner consistent with the belief in the True Presence. [I cannot judge what they truly believe, I can only make statements in regards to their actions.]

Much of the problem comes from the little things. Things like Brian mentioned, that when viewed in isolation aren't that big of a "problem" but when taken as a whole, are all bricks in a wall placed between us the people and the True Presence and the true belief in that presence. Again, certain things taken on their own really can be equivocated, explained, or rationalized, but taken in combination with other things it is difficult to know exactly who believes what about the True Presence.

Now, like many other posts, this one can easily come off as a 'Holier than thou' post. It isn't meant to be, in fact much of what I now believe and do in relation to the Eucharist comes from others and teachings that caused me pause and contemplation on what and how I believed in relation to the Eucharist. So, in that same same light I hope to help others examine their idea of the True Presence. [Again, there aren't "right" answers to many of these questions... and if there are, there may be more than one; it is meant as an exercise in contemplation not and indictment.]

One problem is simply the words we use to explain and describe certain things. Do we call them Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or for brevity, do we shorten it to the improper: "Euchrastic Minister?" Even Wikipedia gets this right (Eucharistic Minister) yet most church bulletins get it wrong.

Here is the teachings of the Church on this issue, taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

Now I know this is a lot of technical liturgical speak, but it is important. In fact, later in that same document, the gravity of importance placed on the Eucharist is explained as such:

Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

So it would appear that it is our duty individually and collectively to ensure proper reverence of the Eucharist. Does this answer Brian's question below? I think it does, but why then do we pause? The answer might be charity, it might be fear, and it might be the worry of spirtual pride or liturgical legalsim of which so many of us fear that we descend into. Yet, if we aren't looking out for the reverence and integrity of the Eucharist, are we not looking out for the integrity and reverence of the same Christ, our Lord? [Think about the qualifier word there: SAME].

If we are unwilling to change the words we use and the actions we take concerning the Eucharist, are we not negating the the belief of the True Presence? If the Eucharist is truly Christ, in our hearts and in our minds, should we not do everything in our power to respectfully honor and worship our Lord? There is a protocol for queens, kings, Popes, and presidents that we all administer reverence to, why not the Christ?

***UPDATE***:
Dan over at Gun Lovin' Alaskan Catholic Club has linked back to this post and offers up some of his own thoughts that further drive this message home! Plus... he has a post title that perfectly addresses the problem:
"Sorry kids, it isn't candy!"


-Posted by: Joe

Be our protection...

A quick thought...

What if *after* Mass we as individuals or families, quietly recited a prayer guiding us through the week? Do you pray after Mass, even briefly? If the Mass is the SUMMIT of our week, then why not depart the Mass seeking protection, guidance, or help?

What if we all took the extra 30 seconds or minute to pray these, quietly aloud after Mass? Imagine if hundreds and thousands appealed to St. Michael or the Blessed Virgin for protection and guidance throughout the week?

At one time, after any Low Mass, certain prayers were a part of the Mass... maybe those would be good. [For more on the Leonine Prayers see: Sancta Missa - Leonine Prayers] My wife and I have started doing this... and some have commented how they miss this tradition.

Here are some suggestions:

Prayer to Saint Michael:

Saint Michael the Archangel,

defend us in battle;

be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.

May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:

and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,

by the power of God,

thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits

who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

Salve Regina

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V./ Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
R./ that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

-Posted by: Joe

A priestly take on the new translation of the Roman Missal

As many of you know there is a new translation of the Roman Missal coming out soon. For those that don't this, the plan is to have the new translation out by Advent of 2011. What does this mean exactly?

It means that the Novus Ordo (Modern Rite English) Mass will "sound" different... and it very well may *be* different, but that is a philosophical and theological question. In terms of practical application, the Missal will change many of the prayers, parts, and words used in the Modern Mass.

This of course has made some people question the implementation of this new translation. They argue that the new translation is cumbersome, difficult, or confusing. They then argue that added to the "difficulty" of the new translation is the simple fact that "change" and "newness" in the Mass will create confusion on behalf of the people of the Faith.

These arguments are shallow and in fact don't address the REASONS behind the necessity and purpose of the new translation. To better explain this point I direct you to Father Lee Acervo's: Corner where he explains not only why the new translation is SOUND but why it is actually a Holy and Faith-filled endeavor.

Here is a very poignant excerpt from his article:

When the Mass was first translated into English, many tried to make it more understandable or “meaningful.”  Well-intentioned, except that to make it meaningful to more and more people, the words had to become more and more simplified.  The goal of making the earthly liturgy more heavenly was lost.  The earthly liturgy was made more earthly or common.  Rather than a foretaste of Heaven, the Mass was often little different than everyday life.  As a result, Mass was no longer an encounter with something beyond this world causing many to say (and still say), “Why bother going?” 

The goal of these new translations is to lead us to something heavenly, yet understandable.  This may cause offense to some, but the prayers that we use at Mass are addressed to God and not to the people.  The priest is speaking not to the congregation, but to God on behalf of the Church, and when we approach someone of high dignity, we naturally use a higher form of language.  How much more when we approach the Almighty?

You can read the rest of his post here:

On the Revised English translations of the Roman Missal

-Posted by: Joe