[Erin] It's not just me...

The problem with the "new mass" is not its lack of reverence, but rather the form itself. There is no offertory, Roman Canon, correct words of Consecration etc. In short it is a Protestant service pure and simple. A high Anglican or Eastern Orthodox service is "reverent". I have been attending the "old Mass" for twenty years. I grew up with the "novus ordo". The "novus ordo" is a totally different ecclesiology. What is really at stake here is the faith itself. Individual exceptions aside, I do not believe the majority of people in "novus ordo" parishes hold the Catholic faith dogmatically or morally. The only solution is to embrace the One True Faith entirely; dogmatically, morally and liturgically.

The "novus ordo" is a totally different ecclesiology. What is really at stake here is the faith itself. Individual exceptions aside, I do not believe the majority of people in "novus ordo" parishes hold the Catholic faith dogmatically or morally. The only solution is to embrace the One True Faith entirely; dogmatically, morally and liturgically.

We're edging towards schism here, since the novus ordo remains the "ordinary" form for the Mass; does "embrace the One True Faith entirely" translate out to "break with Rome"?

BTW, I attend a parish church that uses the Traditional Rite exclusively, and we are in full communion with the local Ordinary.

Some people are edified by the Traditional Mass. They should attend such Masses. The Traditional Mass has been offered at a central location in my diocese ever since the Council, and a lot of people attend. The various bishops have given their blessing to this practice.

Some people are more edified by the novus ordo in the vernacular. Since such Masses are the "ordinary" form for the Mass, people who feel this way should attend such Masses. Such Masses are offered all over the place in my diocese, and a lot of people attend.

There is no need whatever for the latter group to scorn the former, nor is the accusation of lack of orthodoxy hurled by Frank against the latter in line. Neither group is entitled, according to the current state of Church law, to eliminate the other; neither group is per se heretical. If Frank thinks differently, he is not in line with orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine or practice.

Frank, I've been puzzled and distressed by the degree of conflict inside Roman Catholicism, just as you have. I'm thinking now of a priest-monk, a good friend, and very much a fan of the vernacular Mass, who said to me in our most recent conversation that he wonders whether there's always been so much conflict inside the family.

I don't really know the answer to that question. In the 1950's I was a child, and not likely to come into contact with any controversies. I'm vaguely remembering, though, some of the great conflicts of the more distant past: the way the bishops reacted to the friar movement (just a bit short of a shooting war), the controversies around the Knights Templar and the Jesuits. Perhaps the early part of the last century was a period of unusual calm, which now we take for "normal." I'm just not well-grounded enough in that kind of history to say much that's intelligent about it. I am pretty sure that one could have asked "if we are practicing the same religion, why is there so much conflict" at the time of the rise of the Dominicans and Franciscans, for example, and yet, neither the bishops nor the Franciscans were "wrong." They just disagreed, and a resolution, still sometimes an uneasy one, was eventually hammered out.

I don't think our current situation is improved by statements like, "the spirituality of the novus ordo is Protestant." First, it's certainly not "protestant" in any form that a real Protestant would recognize or claim. (!! Anglicans who are serious about Anglicanism abhor the thing.) That statement implies - it doesn't just imply, it comes right out and says - that we shouldn' be celebrating the novus ordo at all. Awkwardly, however, for that position, the novus ordo is right now the normative rite of the Roman Catholic Church. So obviously the Pope and the hierarchy-in-charge do not agree with your evaluation. If we owe this structure obedience, I think there's a potential problem with your position.

While I think everyone agrees that we should strive for good liturgy, I wouldn't draw the line between "good" liturgy (by which I take it you mean the liturgy you like) and "bad" liturgy (by which I think you mean the novus ordo) in quite the same place as you do. I'm old enough to remember the Tridentine Mass when that's all there was, and I can tell you that a lot of Tridentine Masses were horrible liturgy: hasty, irreverent, mumbled, inattentive on the part both of the priest and of the congregation. In fact I have attended innumerable Tridentine Masses for which that is a charitable description. The fact that it was all in Latin, and followed the old form does not, unhappily, get you very far all by itself.

Contrarywise, the Masses which have moved me the most have all been novus ordo Masses in English. I hope you're not going to take the next step and say that that makes me a Protestant. You have to recognize, I think, that there is an element of taste in here. As do I.

Perhaps the key to resolving all this conflict is a dose of old-fashioned charity. We all have to recognize that different people have different tastes in liturgy, and that sometimes, that's all it is, opinion. We have to resist the tendency - apparent on both sides of this particular controversy - to elevate our personal taste and opinion into Absolute Truth.

I have and many people have been struck to the heart by hearing some of the statements - in English - in the novus ordo Mass. "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God" comes as close to describing heaven as we're likely to get with language, and since I don't speak or easily understand Latin, it just didn't have that same impact until I heard it in my own tongue. For me it's like when Mary Magdalen met Jesus at the tomb after the Resurrection and didn't recognize him until he called her by her own name. The entire novus ordo has that effect on me. He's right there. Overwhelmingly present.

The Traditional Mass appeals to you for completely different reasons, which are also valid. Does that make you a better Catholic, or does that mean I am a better Catholic? Maybe neither one. Maybe being a true follower of Christ is dependent on quite other factors.

Jesus himself said - hey, maybe we should listen to HIM - that men would know that we are his followers by the way we love each other. In that sense, this conflict is a very bad witness to the rest of the world.

At any rate, to the extent that what I said didn't rise to that standard, I admit that fault, and ask your forgiveness.

Frank, I understand your pain; I feel it myself. Sometimes I think the anti-Rome, politically correct, old ICEL wanted to "protestantize" the N. O. in order to attract Protestants to come see what the "new", welcoming, tolerant, comunity-based Catholicism was all about. That's why, for example, we now have a Protestant ending to the Our Father.

But I gotta side with Susan (did I just type that!?)in her efforts to ease your concern. For what's its worth, here is how I see it: A few years ago JP II finally got fed up with the near-schismatic, lying American Catholic power structure, and B XVI was sent to us by the Holy Spirit to carry out the reform of the reform, i.e., follow through with the written intents of V II, as opposed to the phoney "Spirit of V II".

We have a new ICEL which is doing a good job to bring back beauty, reference and authenticity (e.g., PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS) to the liturgy, and you know that Gregorian Chant will be ours again in the ordinary Mass.

That said, the American power structure is smarting and will drag its feet for years. Nevertheless, the N. O. eventually will be transformed from what is in some places a comunity meal around the table of pleanty, with Here I Am Lord rendered by the local entertainment, into a beautiful prayer and sacrifice as V II intended. In the meantime we have the Tridentine Mass in a few places and the various Eastern Rites.

"Cleveland!! Are you OK? Please take your temperature without delay!"

I'd be better if I took the time to spell check.

Susan, although I agree with you, Frank is correct that the N. O. has been "Protestantized" in comparison to the Tridentine Mass. So has the music, architecture and former adherence to doctrine; all against Rome's wishes.

Susan, again, I agree with you for the most part, but I disagree (Ah, that feels better) with this :

"Is the Novus Ordo "Protestantized"? That's a matter of opinion....".

The plain-to-see truth is that the N. O.'s Our Father, translations from the Latin, dress, attitude, music, and even our architecture, the dumbing down of the people regarding the Faith and practices, and adherence to doctrine and to Rome are results of "Protestantization." I regret, BTW, that has a bad connotation, and I mean no disrespect to Protestants.