Last week, I reflected on post-Vatican II changes on the liturgy. In particular, I looked at the revival of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin and the official support for it.

This week I will conclude this topic, covering some of my personal hopes and reasoning. It is my wish list for the “reform of the reform” – to correct excesses presumably done in the “spirit” of Vatican II. In short, my hopes are for increased reverence which is rightly due the sacred liturgy and for the renewal and strengthening that will accompany it.

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.

Ecclesia de Eucharistia 52
Pope John Paul II

With that in mind, my first hope is that all priests would faithfully follow the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The GIRM is not a list of “best practices” – it must be strictly followed as written. There are places where the presider may say things in his own words. The GIRM is very clear where that is allowed. Other parts must be presented precisely as described with exactly the words provided. This is very important (see Sacrosanctum Concilium #22, Canon 928, Inaestimabile Donum #5). It is also important that the priest never forget that the Mass is not about him, but solely about Christ.

I am not referring to mistakes and oversights that are completely understandable by our over-worked priests. We are blessed by their dedication and long hours that make occasional errors a reality of their humanity. I am referring to purposeful, intentional changes.

On a related point, use of inclusive language (e.g. “man” changed to “person”) is a serious liturgical abuse. No bishop, priest, deacon or lay reader has the authority to change any text of the Mass to suit what they personally feel it should have said.

It would undoubtedly be controversial, but a lot would be gained in changing from versus populum to ad orientem (from “towards the people” to “the east”). That is, the sacrifice of Mass with everyone – including the priest – facing God. It is something of a mystery why priests currently face the congregation. The GIRM itself implies otherwise. Some priests are making this change (really, a correction). I wrote about one’s experience previously. No doubt, some would decry this as “undoing Vatican II” so catechesis would be needed. Maybe some heavy narcotics too.

Mass is not a performance but a connection to the Last Supper and Calvary. It is exceedingly inappropriate for applause during Mass.

Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.

The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 198
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

There are a number of areas in the distribution of the Holy Eucharist that could be improved. It is not uncommon, for instance, for an army of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC) to be used. This is done because it saves time and many people like serving in this ministry. It is also directly contrary to the conditions specified in Redemptionis Sacramentum 154-160 and Ecclesia de Mysterio article 8 for their use. Ideally the faithful would receive the Eucharist only from the priest or deacon – at least far more often. Speed of distribution is not of paramount importance.

In the United States, we have been dispensed to ALLOW communion in the hand and have somehow effectively made (although did not and could not formally make) it the norm. The universal norm in the Latin rite is communion on the tongue. There is much more abuse resulting from in the hand and it is less reverent. Priests and EMHC are forbidden from denying communion to anyone wishing to receive on the tongue. Fr. John Hardon observed “Whatever you can do to stop communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Kneeling to receive is similar although slightly different. The USCCB (per Eucharisticum Mysterium) has chosen standing as our norm. However, any communicant remains free to receive kneeling per the universal norm (see Protocol No. 47/03/L which explicitly overrides any USCCB claims of kneeling as illicit in the US). As much as a priest or EMHC might be annoyed, they are forbidden from denying communion to anyone who wishes to follow the universal norm. When I was growing-up in my Protestant church, we had communion rails and received kneeling there. I would be thrilled if this came back in the Catholic Church.

In most US dioceses, those not receiving communion are invited to approach for a blessing. This is misguided in a number of ways, contrary to canon law and instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (see Protocol No. 930/08/L, November 22, 2008).

One of the prerogatives of the diocesan bishop is deciding if female altar servers will be allowed. Even if they are, priests can not be compelled to use them. As the father of a daughter, I have to admit that this is a topic I have mixed views on. When I consider only what is best for the Church however, I conclude that it should be male only. This is a function which uniquely gives boys closer exposure to the priesthood as a vocation. For some it will be the seed that later leads them to discern it for themselves. When boys and girls are mixed the dynamics change. The experience of some parishes shows that participation of boys drops when girls also serve.

On the topic of Mass and the Liturgy, here are some of my miscellaneous wish list items:

• more homilies should include at least a brief portion on our beliefs
• sanctus bells at every Mass and incense on all solemnities would be great
• altars should never be lower than most of the congregation
• the tabernacle should always be close to the altar (many churches I have visited have it elsewhere necessitating “find the tabernacle” confusion when genuflecting not to mention a lack of prominence)
• choirs should be in lofts where available so that they do not become the focus
• no more orans posture, at least no attempt to require it
• be sure everyone understands that Mass is not for socializing!
• since 2002 (GIRM 146), we are all to stand after the Orate, fratres (“Pray, brethren…”) before responding “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”; I don’t think everyone got the memo

Finally (whew! this is turning out to be much longer than I thought it would) some general hopes:

• fasting for only 1 hour before receiving the Holy Eucharist is almost the same as not fasting at all – this should be more of a real fast as it once was
• the Sunday obligation should be met on Sunday; Saturday vigil, while meeting the obligation, is just not the same
• holy days of obligation should not be dispensed simply because they fall on a Saturday or Monday
• Friday abstinence should be clearly restored where it is in doubt
• there should be much more adult catechesis – offered and aggressively promoted
• the scandal caused by high profile individuals receiving communion when in open opposition to Church teaching should be addressed
• the scandal caused by Catholic intuitions (hospitals, universities, religious orders) in open opposition to Church teaching and the episcopate should be addressed

The bottom line is not that the liturgy of the Mass and other practices is wrong, broken or less sacred. It is that post-Vatican II “spirit” changes made in haste and/or with questionable authority should be reversed to restore greatest reverence. That is the point of reforming the reform.

It has been 1 year plus 1 day since I became Catholic (formally, at least). Since that time I have learned a lot more about our amazing faith. There remains much more to learn and much that I may never learn.

The Catholic faith is unchanging. That is one of several things that attracted me to look closer in the first place. Coming from a Protestant community where beliefs changed by popular vote, I am particularly sensitive to this. I also firmly believe that changing faith leads to dissolution as seen in many Protestant denominations.

That said, how we practice our faith liturgically can and does change, if very slowly. Vatican II, ending 46 years ago, was the impetus for the last major changes. Following that, Mass in vernacular languages (i.e. other than Latin; local) was permitted (although NOT required) and increased participation of the laity in the liturgy.

The teachings of Vatican II are truly excellent. For example, Pope Paul VI describes the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324) as follows:

Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It. Thus both by reason of the offering and through Holy Communion all take part in this liturgical service, not indeed, all in the same way but each in that way which is proper to himself. Strengthened in Holy Communion by the Body of Christ, they then manifest in a concrete way that unity of the people of God which is suitably signified and wondrously brought about by this most august sacrament.

Lumen Gentium 11

In the years after Vatican II ended, the changes in the Mass and other practices were made presumably in accordance with it. Presumably because in practice, some of the changes do not have any direct linkage with it but were made instead “in the spirit of Vatican II.” However well meaning, these changes were not decisions of the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church but were the decisions of others.

Changes following Vatican II have made our Catholic faith more approachable and that is a good thing. The excesses in liberalization of practices and “Protestantization” of some aspects of Mass are not. There are extremists on both sides of this discussion. Some want to aggressively continue “in the spirit of Vatican II” almost to a Unitarian least common denominator. Others want to drop the Ordinary Form (a/k/a Novus Ordo, new Mass) and return to the 1962 Latin form exclusively.

I am at neither of these extremes, but from what I have read and what I have seen, believe that the moves our Holy Father has made to address the excesses are excellent. The corrected translation of the English Mass to be effective next Advent is a good example. Yet, the liberal forces are already fighting it. Just last week a group of Irish priests made “an urgent plea” to delay the correction “for at least another 5 years” or until hell freezes over, which ever comes later. OK, I made up that second part but that is probably closer to their unspoken intent.

Mass, as it is even now, is beyond words. The best I can do is to remind us that Mass is a supernatural mystery where heaven and earth touch, angels and saints join us as the Last Supper and Calvary are made present. The body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus is literally confected in the Eucharist — in which we are united with Christ and each other through all time and space.

Pope Benedict XVI describes the liturgy as where “God and man meet each other in an embrace of salvation.”

I also believe that while it as sacred as ever, Vatican II “spirit” changes have made it less reverent. Not just the extreme liturgical abuses such as “liturgical dance,” but smaller abuses and practices. What exactly Mass is becomes lost. The poorly catechized may not see it as particularly different than any Christian worship service. Their sense of the real presence of Christ becomes questioning. Ultimately they may leave. The zeal of the faithful is also diminished. It is a very serious issue.

The reason the Latin Mass is having a revival is in response to this. The rubrics are more demanding, the words more difficult to change and novelties (abuses) more difficult to introduce. I have a lot of empathy for why so many faithful Catholics feel this way.

After Vatican II, some foresaw the dangers. Some overreacted. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) comes to mind. They rejected the authority of the Church, not unlike the Protestant Reformation, to practice pre-Vatican II Catholicism. While there has been some progress at reunification, they remain in schism with the Church. Theirs is not a solution.

Much better is The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP). They were established by Pope John Paul II as a society of apostolic life. Their mission is in support of the traditional liturgy (i.e. 1962 / Latin) of the Church. FSSP Masses are offered worldwide, particularly in the US and Europe. They even have a parish in my archdiocese.

Many people are unaware of the FSSP. For that matter, many believe that the Latin Mass was consigned to history by Vatican II. That was never the case. John Paul II decreed by his Apostolic authority in Ecclesia Dei that respect be shown to those who desired the older forms of worship and that the provisions for older forms of worship be generously applied.

The Vicar of Christ was ignored and instead, many road blocks were erected by the more liberal bishops. In many places, it was difficult or impossible for a priest to say Mass in Latin. In 2002, Pope Benedict XVI addressed this and went much further in Summorum Pontificum. Now, every priest has direct authority to offer Mass in Latin (permission from his bishop is clearly not required). Not only that, but pastors must see to the requests of the faithful for Mass in the older form (either the 1962 or 2002 Missale Romanum). Moreover, should they not be able for some reason to do so themselves, their bishop must assist in fulfilling the request. No more “Mr. Nice Guy.”

I am intrigued by the forms of Latin Mass and think that having it more widely available is a very good thing. However, the Ordinary Form (OF; e.g. in English) Mass is not going away either nor should it. It should be corrected and strengthened. Abuses, excesses and the taking of liberties should be reigned in. This will cause howls of protest, but the faith will be stronger for it.

I will complete this topic next Tuesday with my personal hopes and reasoning.

Being Catholic, by baptism or conversion, is permanent. Notwithstanding any personal renunciations to the contrary, one can not quit being Catholic any more than one can be unbaptized or quit the human race. Yet, there are many Catholics who consider themselves “ex-Catholics” or “former-Catholics.” Other Catholics might refer to them as “lapsed Catholics” or “inactive Catholics.”

Whatever label is used, it saddens me knowing that they have reached this place on their faith journey. Some have simply stopped going to church. Others have have joined other Christian communities, other religions or even adopted agnostic viewpoints.

Christ and his Church are inseparable. “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16   Vatican II notes:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Lumen Gentium 14

When Catholics leave the Church they are leaving the one Church instituted by Jesus Himself and given authority to act in his name. They are abandoning most of the sacraments, gifts from Jesus that strengthen us and deepen our relationship with Him. They leave the fullness of the Christian faith for a subset…       or worse. They often move to a world where the truths taught by Jesus are often diluted and compromised.

Why then do some Catholics leave? Simple – their faith has been poorly formed. I believe that well catechized Catholics would never leave Holy Mother Church.

Knowing the faith is not a matter of “credentials” either. Among the separated Catholics are quiet a few who can claim years of Catholic school and university attendance, while never really learning the faith with an open heart.

The reasons Catholics give for leaving often follow a few common scenarios:

• “Mass ‘doesn’t do anything for me’ and I enjoy the worship service better at XYZ.” The Mass is sacred (not entertaining) and conducted with reverence. While it includes worship, it is much, much more than that. Every Mass is a supernatural mystery where heaven and earth touch, angels and saints join us as the Last Supper and Calvary are made present. The body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus is literally confected in the Eucharist — in which we are united with Christ and each other through all time and space. The worship services of other Christian communities, however holy and reverent, are not remotely comparable to the Mass.
• “The worship service at XYZ is so outgoing and welcoming.” Catholics are welcoming too, but Mass is solidly focused on Jesus and not a social gathering focused on how you feel. Additionally, visitors who are experienced with some Protestant churches will notice that we give them space instead of proselytizing. We have many opportunities for fellowship, but not at Mass. We welcome the opportunity to explain our faith, but do not ambush people with it. No one here will judge you as not saved.
• “I don’t accept the Catholic teaching on XYZ.” Very rarely this is theologically based, such as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility. Sometimes it is due to influences from the secular world such as believing that a male only priesthood is an affront to the equality of women. These would be failures of catechesis (if they are the real reason). Often the reason is that the person wants to engage in a sinful behavior (e.g. one of the many forms of sex outside of true marriage or abortion) and finds a church that is “tolerant” and “non-judgmental” to accommodate their will.
• “I am disturbed by the Catholic sex scandal.” All Catholics are, on many levels. Throughout history there have been a wide variety of scandals in the Church because we are a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. We are no different than every other human organization in this regard, including every other faith community. When we fail, we reform. Unlike every other organization, we are protected by the Holy Spirit to the end of time. “[U]pon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18
• “I have been insulted by a {pick one: priest, religious, someone else}.” We are human and unfortunately this happens, just as it does everywhere else. I say this only to explain the problem, not excuse it. If there were only one parish and in that parish was someone who was continuously rude or insulting to you, then at least a poor case could be made for leaving Christ’s true Church.
• “I am ‘on fire’ at XYZ.” You may have (finally) learned part of the true Christian faith. (Along the way, you may have also learned some things that are not.) Another part of your experience might simply be emotional. The fullness of the Christian faith, including the truths that are exciting you now, is only in the Catholic Church. Steve Wood wrote an interesting piece for the Catholic Education Resource Center that you may want to read entitled How I led Catholics Out of the Church.
• “My boyfriend / girlfriend is at XYZ and it doesn’t really matter which church that you go to.” Our brothers and sisters in Christ include those who are in other Christian communities and we pray often for our unification. The Catholic Church however, is not just another of many Christian churches, but the one founded by Our Lord Himself. It is the only one with certain truth and the fullness of the Christian faith. It is the only one that can support and nourish you through the sacraments. Other churches share with us a portion of the Christian faith but are no substitute for the Catholic Church.

In the end, we all have free will. We can “walk with our feet” if want to, but we should know what we are walking away from. It is every Catholic’s on-going obligation to learn the teachings of the Catholic Church to the best of their ability. Doing nothing more than attending Mass once per week is insufficient.

Sadly, many who leave the Church never return. It is not unusual however, for Catholics to return home. When they do, they are often “older and wiser” with a burning zeal to really learn the faith. Here are a few of their stories:

• Kathleen Laplante
• Carmel Brizzi
• Rosemarie (then part 2 and part 3)
• Richard Evans
• Russ Rentler
• Janet Morana
• “Logeyed Roman”
• video testimonials (CatholicsComeHome.org)