Latin Pontifical High Mass (1962 form) by Archbishop Wenski, Miami

The South Miami News reports, “Thousand attend first Latin mass in 40 years at South Miami Church.” Check out the video.

The letter sent to clergy and seminarians (in PT’s formatting) is here.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/03/2622603/thousand-attend-first-latin-mass.html#storylink=cpy

156 comments

  1. How refreshing.

    Anti-clericalist to the MAX. The priests are no longer little monarchs. Like all the baptised, they must obey. So, too, must the successors of the apostles.

    Don’t you love the explicit instructions given to the clergy in the .pdf link?

    (“I love thy law, O Lord” -Psalm 119)

    To me, it is the ultimate Christian paradox. If there are no boundaries there is no choice between discreet things. (“If God be for us, who can be against us” or “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead” or “That though he was rich, he became poor” or

    1. Did you, by “discreet” mean “discrete” . . . loving the law so much, you should probably obey the rules of the language.

      1. Don’t you just love the directions to separates the “lowest ranking” clergy from the “highest ranking!”

        I wonder did the disciples at the Last Supper rent their birettas from the nearest liturgical suppliers.

    2. “(”I love thy law, O Lord” -Psalm 119)”

      If you are using this text, taken out of context, to justify the courtly minutiae of dressing “higher-ranking” and “lower-ranking” clergy, such as is found in the instruction from Wenski’s secretary, then you’ll need to think again.

      The quote from the psalm refers to the Torah of the Lord – that is, either in its general sense of all learning, or in its specific sense of the five Books of Moses. To compare either of these with the crass list of directives about what order to sit in, how to dress (effetely) where to place your biretta, is laughable in the extreme.

  2. I’m gonna be nice and keep my comments to myself. If these people are so small-minded that they feel the need to cling to the pre-conciliar church fetishes……nevermind, I’m gonna be nice and keep my comment to myself. In the meantime, thinking Catholics will celebrate and believe.

    1. re: Barbara Lowenthal on February 4, 2012 – 11:31 pm

      “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 11 – 13 NRSV) (my parentheses)

      Were you baptized in the name of Barbara and have died in her? Was I baptized in the name of Jordan and have died in him? No, we died in Christ and were given the unmerited gift of justification. We belong to Christ and have been grafted into his Church to grow through cooperation with grace. We have not been re-grafted onto ourselves, even if modern persons delude themselves with “self-sufficiency”.

      Have the “small-minded” died in Christ in baptism? I certainly hope so, because I am small-minded and a sinner. Perhaps the “thinking” do not sin and have no need to bend the knee, because their minds have created and dismissed a vapid straw argument for sin. We can only “celebrate and believe” in sacramental forgiveness, in contrition, and in worthy communion. There is no knee to bend towards a “God” which has been “defeated” by more rational thought and subsequently denied deference.

      At the end of the vulgate psalm 25, recited in full during the lavabo of the Extraordinary Form, the priest concludes: pes meus stetit in directo in ecclesiis benedicam te Domine. “My foot has stood on the sure path. I will bless you, Lord, in the assemblies.” How may we stand the sure path and bless the Lord if our graven idol “Lord” is a pathetic construct of our feeble intellects?

      Jansenism had its century. One might hope that the heresy of “Catholic” self-actualization might mercifully cease in less time.

  3. Sounds like it was amazing. Perhaps it isn’t what a lot of posters here would like, but it obviously meant something to the thousand or so who attended and brought them closer to God.

    1. It meant an awful lot to those thousand. And it means a lot to the several hundred that attend the EF Mass here every week, and at the 4 other locations in our Diocese. It is finally becoming clear (I hope!) that there really can be two (or more) forms of liturgical worship within the faith, as there are obviously two (or more) views of how our faith should be expressed. I think the arguments against either form are growing stale these days.

  4. So, our ancestors in the faith go back only to the 16th century, with the Missal of Pius V? And ALL those masses were Solemn High Masses with gorgeous chant and/ or sacred choral music? Or maybe 1962, with the changes introduced by John XXIII? Or maybe back to the Roman Church of the 5th century? Oh, no, never mind; their mass was in the Latin vernacular. Wait; don’t the Greek and Syriac and perhaps Aramaic early Christians in the house churches — they don’t count as our ancestors in the faith???
    Surely the Communion of Saints is richer than a Solemn High Mass in Latin.
    (And the vast majority of Latin masses when I was growing up were not marvelous pageants; they were mechanical, plodding, and pedantic. The first years of English masses were awful, because many of the presiders read the English prayers in the same mechanical, plodding, and pedantic way they had read the Latin — hardly “vernacular”.)

    1. Nobody in the article was dissing the early Christians, or saying anything about how “our ancestors in the faith go back only to the 16th century.” The Tridentine Mass was in use for a long time by a good number of “our ancestors in the faith” – particularly our recent ancestors. It’s the only Mass my immigrant great grandparents knew.

      Our ancestors in the faith include people who lived from the 16th Century to the mid 20th Century.

    2. What I think is special about the way that the extraordinary form of the mass brings us in contact with our ancestors is that when it is celebrated it is not a reconstruction of something done in the past, but rather a living thing that never completley disappeared. We have very little idea about how the eucharist was celebrated in 5th century Rome or in the house churches of the earliest Christians. I think that this reason makes the extraordinary form of the mass worth preserving.

  5. The irony in the comments that this type of thing generates is too rich. The archbishop didn’t mandate any ‘retro’ policies for the whole of his archdiocese. In fact, he just celebrated one Mass and as far as I know, no one was dragged kicking and screaming to it. So why the problem with people attending something they obviously wanted to attend, even if it isn’t your cup of tea? It surprises me that people who are concerned about the Church becoming smaller and more exclusive, are equally likely to be so dogmatic on the matter, and exclusive – the only thing being different is whom they happen to be excluding.

  6. Thus we see the fallacy of those who embrace the progressive spirit of Vatican II, everything new is good, everything old is bad and nasty. This provides a very good example of what “rupture” with our Tradition implies, nastiness toward that which was and still is today. But what is really telling, praytell, is that if these sorts of nasty comments were made toward Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Muslims or Jews, more than likely they would have been censored. But when anti-ecumenical views are written against fellow Catholics and in the most vitriolic of ways, these are left to stand. Ecumenism anyone? I’ll take the monarchy of Catholicism over the dictatorship of nastiness any day.

    1. Actually, Fr Allan, the reality is far more nuanced than your synthesis would suggest.

      To claim that those who promote the Mass of Pius V are for the “old” while those who oppose it are for only the “new” is about as unhistorical an interpretation of the facts as it is possible to imagine.

      The Mass has developed over the last two millenia. And it will continue to develop. That’s how belief and liturgy work. Those who promote the Tridentine liturgy are opting for a reconstruction of one stage of that development, frozen in time. It’s a Rip van Winkle approach to church and liturgy and a case of producing yesterday’s answers to today’s questions.

      The Christians of the first millenium would not recognise the biretta brigade as their successors in the faith.

      It would be interesting to know how many of the thousand of the faithful would be able to differentiate God save the Queen from Pop goes the Weasel if they were in Latin.

      1. Well written! It reminds me of those who say only organ music should be used at Mass, when there apparently was great opposition to use of the organ when it was introduced.

    2. In this scenario, people are given a choice. People only had to attend that mass if they wished.

      Everything old only becomes “bad and nasty” when everything new becomes forbidden.

      1. “Everything old only becomes “bad and nasty” when everything new becomes forbidden.”

        Very true – the same can be said for those who view anything new as “bad and nasty.” Due to the Latin Mass being more-or-less forbidden for nearly 40 years, there are many traditionalists who think anything new is horrible. You’ll even find resistance to adding saints canonized since 1962 to the old missal.

      2. Obviously, Jack, they should have learned from that mistake. They stopped the latin mass, and then ultimately brought it back, because it left a hole with many Catholics. So, instead of stopping the previous English translation, they should have seen from their experience with eliminating the Latin mass, that the proper thing to do would be to have kept them both.

  7. Mutual enrichment on both forms, perhaps leading to yet a new form again doesn’t sound like “Rip van Winkle” frozen in time approach to Mass, not that there aren’t adherents of both forms of the Mass that do want a Rip van Winkle approach frozen, either in the 1950’s or the 1970’s.
    But my point was nastiness and the unecumenical attitude written in vitriolic ways toward fellow Catholics of whatever genre that would never be allowed if directed toward Protestants, Jews or Muslims. Do we not want ecumenism with SSXP? Progressives can get quite nasty toward them but be in bed with the radical wing of the Episcopal Church.

    1. “Yet a new form” (to quote you, Allan) sounds like even more “rupture” – or is it not “rupture” if your pin-up pope (who invented the hitherto unheard of “two forms of one rite”) decrees it isn’t?!

      No need to keep repeating yourself on the nastiness issue: your expertise in the area is unquestioned.

      1. Can you quote a single statement from Fr. McDonald’s many posts here that an ordinary normal person would regard as “nasty”? Or even lacking in the simple Christian charity that is lacking in so many of the posts here?

    2. “Do we not want ecumenism with SSXP? Progressives can get quite nasty toward them but be in bed with the radical wing of the Episcopal Church.”

      It often seems that when the goal is ecumenism with a more conservative group, the church is willing to implement changes to the more conservative group’s way of doing things, but when the ecumenism is with a more progressive group, the church wants that more progressive group; to adopt the church’s way of doing things.

      1. Er Sean, some bishops of the SSPX have denied the holocaust and the murder/slaughter of 6 million men, women and children. Perhaps you can reveal the name of a bishop in the radical wing of the Episcopal church who has also denied it?
        Yes, we progressives can get “quite nasty” toward the SSPX because some of them have neofacist tendencies and we can be quite nasty toward president Ahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran too

      2. Dale, I was merely quoting what Allan McDonald posted earlier, and then adding that the church has a selective view of what it will do in the name of ecumenism.

      3. Thanks Sean, I misread. (That’s what you get when watching the SuperBowl and commenting at the same time).
        I apologize Sean and redirect my comment to Fr Allan McDonald.

        Er Allan, some bishops of the SSPX have denied the holocaust and the murder/slaughter of 6 million men, women and children. Perhaps you can reveal the name of a bishop in the radical wing of the Episcopal church who has also denied it?
        Yes, we progressives can get “quite nasty” toward the SSPX because some of them have neofacist tendencies and we can be quite nasty toward president Ahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran too

    3. No, Allan, I don’t favor “ecumenism” with those who call themselves Roman Catholic while rejecting the principal developments of faith that flow from the documents of Vatican II. The continuing celebration of the EF reminds me of the church in France refusing to use the Missal of Pius V for two centuries after Trent. I am not challenging its validity as a part of our liturgical history, but the wisdom and prudence of using it as a form of resistance.

      1. Excellent point – and it proves the “lie” in this argument.

        What we see today is polarization; revisionist liturgical history; we see revisionist VII histories that rewrite what 2400 bishops spent four years developing.

        The constant interjection of “NO”, “EF”, “OF”, “TLM” – where did this come from? We have a current pope who did a 180 degree turn in the 1970s in terms of VII and now makes decisions such as SP that have overturned the “hermeneutic of continuity” – two forms of one rite; re-explaining that the Pius or John missal was never abrogated, etc. This is truly the “hermeutic of disruption”.

        At least, the century after Trent in France followed the hundreds of years prior to Trent when the districts of France “owned” their own liturgies almost as part of their heritage, defense of their royal, district political perogatives; some based on their “tribal” cultures and cultural development.

        (and it is interesting that our shared history of the great religious orders/founders emerged following Trent and were instrumental in re-educating and implementing the Trentan missal and liturgy via parish missions, seminary training, etc. which appears to be a very different pattern from today’s leadership and curia in regards to VII and its liturgy/missal. Can you imagine that Vincent dePaul would have supported or implemented a seminary or priest retreat that would have reintroduced the pre-Trentan liturgies?)

        Now we have a first – some segments of the world who have latched on to the historical liturgies as their legal right….historically we have seen this based upon cultural or missionary reasons. Now, we see it justified not for cultural or mission reasons but as some type of “historical liturgical” abberration which used to be described as “antiquarianism”.

        Read the original documents of the VII preparatory committee (by folks such as deLubac or Congar). They clearly lay out a primary focus of ecumenism via shared liturgies; scripture; prayers; vernaculars, etc. that might help draw us closer and facilitate a healing of the Reformation disruption. That is the continuity (Congar and deLubac basing these suggested concilar goals upon 20th century and Pius XII developments and decisions) – how can one reconcile SP or LA with the primary goals and eventual principles of VII?

        We seem to have moved from a concilar desire to heal differences among churches to a revisionist stand that allows for increased differences just in the catholic church in some vague hope that the VII efforts to “cleanse” liturgy of accretions may some how find a better liturgy by re-merging the pre with the VII liturgy – and this will help ecumenism how?

    4. People who are in favor of ecumenism have good reason to feel antipathy towards the sspx and traditionalists as they question the very possibility of ecumenism (aside from the kind that threatens those who refuse to join the one true church with eternal hell fire.). The rhetoric that comes from high profile traditionalists is also a huge problem. Fr. Z is a great example.. But terms like ‘biological solution’ really turn people off. It’s hard to want to have anything to do with people who activly wish for your death. I’m not saying that all traditionalists use these terms, but the very fact that they are tolerated from high profile people in the movement doesn’t inspire confidence.

  8. “The archbishop faced away from the church . . .” both in the print story and the video commentary.

    Telling, very telling.

  9. The full video of this solemn pontifical Mass of Candlemas is available for download at

    livemass.net/LiveMass/Live.html

    This Mass was impressive in several ways –e.g., for the participation of diocesan priests “in choir” (perhaps 40 or 50, mostly young) of the Archdiocese of Miami, and for the chanting of the propers by a choir of young nuns from the archdiocese.

    Holy Communion was interesting. The assisting clergy and priests in choir approached in pairs to kneel and receive over a cloth stretched before the archbishop by two acolytes. Then most of the 1200 in attendance appeared to receive, all kneeling despite the lack of an altar rail in the church. While there were a few prie deux at the side. most of the people simply knelt on the floor before the altar steps in a line across the front of the church.

  10. From Ab. Wenski’s letter inviting his priests to this Mass”

    “”All priests are welcome to attend. This wonderful celebration is an opportunity to experience beautiful music in its intended spiritual setting, but also to be immersed in the rich symbolism of the Tridentine Mass. It is the Archbishop’s hope that this event will serve as a means for “mutual enrichment,” as Pope Benedict XVI has noted, between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. By becoming more familiar with and deeply rooted in the Mass of the 1962 Missale Romanum, we can better understand the Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI and its accompanying ars celebrandi.”

    I believe the last sentence here crystallizes Pope Benedict’s primary reason Summorum Pontificum — to rescue the Mass of Paul VI from the “deformations” to which it has almost universally been subjected.

  11. There’s nothing wrong with a mass being offered in Latin, especially if the people who attended it were spiritually enlightened by it. I wouldn’t criticize them, make fun of them, or look down on them.

    Even if offered on a regular basis, it wouldn’t bother me in the least, as long as I could still attend the English mass that I’d always been attending.

  12. rich symbolism of the Tridentine Mass . What would that entail?

    Not something like this I dare say:

    49. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.

    50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

    For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

    To apply reverse engineering #40 & 50 argue that all that rich symbolism is actually distortion. I guess one man’s lace is another grandma’s doily.

  13. The news description was fair and balanced.

    On the one hand they did emphasize the externals The archbishop performed …a service of pomp and ceremony with priests dressed in traditional garments…“the things the priest does, how he’s constantly putting on clothes.” but without any explicit editorial critique that liberals might read into these things

    On the other hand while they acknowledged it . brought back memories for Lucy Jackson. that was balanced by The crowd inside the church included all ages.. Despite not being able to understand Latin, many attendees could follow mass… the church ran out of booklets to help churchgoers follow along

    The number of people should not be surprising. Father Calvin Goodwin of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a very traditional group of priests who was visiting. This is elaborated upon by the video. The PFSP came from all over the country and all over the world. NLM advertised this on January 31st, indicating promotion by the Musica Sacra Florida website and CMAA.

    The EF like the Neocats are less than 1% of the Church. Both look to bishops as patrons. I should not have been surprised the Neocats had Cardinals Rigali and O’Malley and the Apostolic Delegate. They need a website to compete with NLM EF photos.

    Both Neocats and the EF are present in this diocese (less than 1%). I was surprised when the parish closings took place how many “old European ethnic” Masses still took place in this diocese. They far exceeded the number of Neocat and EF Masses.

    Then, of course, there is the elephant in the room, the “current ethnics” Hispanics, etc. who are headed to being the majority of Catholics in the US. They get very little publicity at all in the secular or Catholic press or on liturgy blogs. The only place I get information on them is from Rocco’s Whispers in the Loggia. They have really big and interesting events, and not simply because bishops come.

  14. Jack – one caution. The Hispanic liturgies and for some focus on La Virgen at least is a continuous pattern in terms of how the church and liturgy has developed across the world culturally.

    You compare/contrast this with the EF or TLM but those are not cultural or missionary rites or liturgical enculturations – the 1% appear to be advocating for a new type of “rite”.

    You are correct in stating that we rarely talk about this phenomenon or how it may or will impact future liturgical development – in many ways, it is very different from EF or TLM but it will and has brought changes in the way we celebrate the VII liturgy.

    1. I think the point that some are “Rip van Winkle” and frozen in a particular period also applies to the fact that today there is a great ferment for another type of change that those of us schooled in the 1970’s can’t believe is taking place because it goes against our post-Vatican II sensibilities, but make no mistake about it, the times, they are a changing and everyone, no matter their theological perspective should recognize that and recognize time marches on sometimes with us and sometimes without us and sometimes time stops for us when we die either figuratively or in reality.
      The post-Vatican II theologies of the 1970’s are for the most part passe now. Wake up and smell the coffee.
      But one point about ecumenism. I don’t expect Catholics on the far right to be ecumenical, but I do expect it from those formed in post-Vatican II middle of the road and left of center theology about it. And thus, when a post-Vatican II person imbued with post-Vatican II ecumenical theology rails against a community in union with the Church, such as those who prefer the EF Mass or even those in schism with the authority of the Church, like the SSXP, whose suspension is based more on the Great Schism example with the East, not really in matters of dogma or faith, but in ecclessiology, liturgy, spirituality, devotions and the theological role of bishops and the role of Peter, and these people are treated by so-called Vatican II Catholics in a way they would never treat either Protestants, Orthodox, or even Jews, Hindus and Muslim, it boggles my ecumenical post-Vatican II mind.
      But the terms, OF, EF, SSXP, and AO, etc are here to stay for the foreseeable future, get use to change.

      1. In my opinion (of course you have yours Fr. Alan) but B16 is what 85? There is tremendous dissatisfaction and the next pontiff may possibly be in no mood to put up with all of this. Furthermore he is not bound by the dictates of B16 especially if it’s only 1-2% of catholics
        One further observation. I am always amused when I hear how many people especially “young people” attend an EF mass. However, two years ago the St. Paul society put on an EF and the Immaculate Conception Basilica in Washington. We were again told that the pews were overflowing and lots of young people.
        But no EF mass last year, it seems not enough interest. Why so many at the first mass and dead on arrival the second year? Human behavior tends to be quite curious and whenever something that was forbidden is now available lots of people go. However, they learn hindsight isn’t always 20/20 and learned that the EF isn’t all it’s cut out to be.
        What will be interesting is if there is an EF mass next year in Miami.
        1000 people out of a diocese of 1.3 million catholics (2011) isn’t much. Even a Miami concert or football game can get 30000 without much sweat. My opinion of course

      2. This whole thing has come about by the perception by many of the younger priests and other episcopabili that JPII was steering a course to the far right. When Ratzinger got elected the revanchist movement was kicked into higher gear. We nski knows there’s an outside chance that Miami could be a see worthy of crimson robes. With only 1% on board, however, it’s little more than a fantasy. The council Fathers directed a reform of the Tridentine mass, and what they did in Miami clearly demonstrates why.

      3. One further observation. I am always amused when I hear how many people especially “young people” attend an EF mass. However, two years ago the St. Paul society put on an EF and the Immaculate Conception Basilica in Washington. We were again told that the pews were overflowing and lots of young people.
        But no EF mass last year, it seems not enough interest.

        Huh? This is just your imagination. The Mass was canceled because the Paulus Institute was “unable to obtain the necessary permission,” not because of lack of interest.

      4. Goodness, there are a lot of “finger in the air” statistics being thrown around!

        It’s very difficult to gauge the true appetite for the EF, because it is in very short supply (and where it is available, Mass times are often at funny times of day or on odd days of the week).

        Equally, the suggestion that there is enormous discontent with the current Pontificate is not really based on hard evidence (and let’s not forget that he is enormously well received by the laity on his visits abroad). After all, the predictions that there would be a great falling away among the faithful following the introduction of the new translation have proven unfounded; we can’t take the readership of this blog as being representative of the Church as a whole.

        I would be very surprised to see any great change coming in the next Pontificate, just to please the readers of Pray Tell!

      5. I think even most of those here at PrayTell really sense which way the winds of history are blowing. And apparently fear that, with the restoration of Church and Faith well underway, the next pope will advance further the program of Pope Benedict.

      6. Henry, to quote you about your claim concerning the winds of history are blowing in your direction…

        “Huh? This is just your imagination.”

        1000 attended out of 1.3 million catholics in the archdiocese of Miami, this after lots of advertising nationwide. That amounts to 0.07%, yup, that’s a typhoon all right. Not.

        By the way, yes, that is the “excuse” that the Paulus society uses on Z’s site. Interesting though, since they cannot be prohibited from celebrating this form I think a quick call to the Vatican would have solved their problem don’t you think. I don’t buy their excuse at all and I don’t think most people do either. Dead on arrival might be more accurate.

      7. Dale, I’m not writing about the Archdiocese of Miami. So I don’t know why you’re writing about it in response to me.

        By the way, yes, that is the “excuse” that the Paulus society uses on Z’s site.

        It’s the only evidence you have about why the Mass was canceled. That it was canceled because of lack of interest is a theory you’ve dreamed up from your desk and are putting forth on the internet as fact.

        Interesting though, since they cannot be prohibited from celebrating this form

        That’s not true, which you’d know if you’d studied the relevant documents.

        I think a quick call to the Vatican would have solved their problem don’t you think.

        Nothing is solved by a quick phone call to the Vatican and it’s nonsense to suggest otherwise.

        I don’t buy their excuse at all and I don’t think most people do either. Dead on arrival might be more accurate.

        Making up facts you can’t possible know, “I don’t think most people do either,” in support of your baseless theorizing about why the Mass was canceled doesn’t count as evidence.

      8. Dale, the Miami Mass was merely a first straw in a wind indicating that it’s blowing even there. There a lot of straws blowing around in a lot of places. We’ll what it all adds up to.

        But by the “wind of history” I did not mean to refer specifically to the EF Mass. it is about the more general restoration of Faith and Liturgy in continuity with their history. There are lots of opinions, but I personally have no doubt that the Mass of the preponderant majority of Catholics will continue to be the OF Mass as it continues to evolves toward a faithful implementation of Vatican II, with the EF serving as a guide or rudder by “mutual enrichment”, though itself likely attended only by a relatively small minority.

        Incidentally, you’re simply not accurately informed about the 2011 Washington situation–why should you be? Despite great demand for the Paulus-sponsored Mass (at least, relative to the capacity of the NBSIC) negotiations about arrangements encountered an obstruction at the local level. But nothing is to be gained by rehashing that here.

      9. Dr. Dale Rodriguez said: “Even a Miami concert or football game can get 30000 without much sweat.”

        Are you saying a similar Thursday evening Mass at a parish church according to the OF would have been as well attended as a football game? Is this bishop some kind of a rock star who regularly gets thousands upon thousands of people at every single Mass he celebrates? You need to compare apples to apples because there’s hardly any Mass that in and of itself can compete with local sporting events.

        The only Masses that get as many people as football games that I know of are the ones celebrated by the Pope.

      10. Thomas I respect your opinion but I do not agree.

        There is indeed lots of discontent w/ this pontificate.
        Have you seen the discontent in Ireland lately? They love +archbishop Martin because he called the Vatican on the carpet for it’s handling of the sex abuse. They sent home the Vatican diplomat, that never happened before. The Austrians have walked out of the church after some of B16’s appointments, the current discontent of priests in Austria and Germany, the discontent in Belgium and on and on. Concerning the summorum pontificum even bishops in Europe spoke publicly about advising B16 to not go ahead. Not for over a century since Vatican I have bishops spoken out against the wishes of a pontiff. Then there is the SSPX and the holocaust deniers. Even Merkel, a Lutheran, publicly acknowledged that she call B16 to “remind” him of the “sensitivities” involved, much to the chagrin of the Vatican. B16 even needed to write a letter to his “fellow bishops” to explain to them why he made that decision. Then the problems in the Vatican, Bertone et al. I could go on. So I guess there is indeed “hard evidence” but that is my opinion.
        We will find out eventually what will come next.

      11. Jack, it is indeed sad that in a heavily catholic area we cannot fill a stadium regardless of the type of mass. I’m sure you will agree with me on that.
        My point was that this was, according to some bloggers here, an advertised event nationwide and only a thousand showed up. That was my point.

      12. and Sam….
        I stated at the beginning of my comment that it was “my opinion” and it was addressed to Fr. Allan. But despite that you attempt to denigrate me, you state:

        “This is just your imagination”
        and
        “a theory you’ve dreamed up from your desk”
        and
        “Making up facts you can’t possible know…”
        and
        “your baseless theorizing..”

        I have tried to be gracious and respectful to everyone’s opinion on this post.

        How about giving it a try Sam.

      13. To compare the SSPX’s split from the Church with the schism of 1054 between Constantinople and Rome must qualify for the most outlandish comparison that has appeared on PT since its inception.

      14. Dr. Dale R, I guess I just don’t see it the same way you do. The Mass was advertised nationwide on a few blogs (it certainty didn’t get advertised on TV or the newspapers nationwide), but isn’t the sort of thing that would attract all that many people from across the country. As Samuel said below, it wasn’t the only Candlemass in the country. Plus it was held on a weekday.

        Pontifical Solemn High Masses all around the country get plugs online and it’s heartening for people like me to see they are happening, but I’ve never felt motivated to fly across the country for one and rent a hotel room. Maybe if the Pope showed up in Chicago to have a Solemn High Mass I would.

        For what it was, the turnout seemed rather incredible, IMO. I think it would be better to ask what percentage of Catholics who attended Mass that day were present at this event, or if overall church attendance for that day was larger because of this Mass. I doubt the 1.3 million other Catholics were all at OF Masses at that time.

      15. Dale,

        There is certainly a lot of antipathy to the hierarchy in Ireland, but I am far from convinced that it extends to the person of the Holy Father: there has been a serious grass-roots backlash against the decision to withdraw the Irish embassy to the Holy See and plenty of people made the trip across the Irish sea to be in the UK for the Holy Father’s visit.

        The situation in Germany and Austria is interesting but doesn’t tell us a great deal: we are seeing people with, on the whole, a nominal connection with the Church opting out of paying Church taxes. The position in Austria is less uniform than our news-sources tend to report, as they remorselessly focus on Linz and the vocal activist group there.

        I don’t think that any of the cases that you have highlighted tell us much about the attitude of the majority of the faithful: more often than not they tell us about the particular discourse that the secular media indulges in when it’s covering Pope Benedict.

    2. Dale, it’s not like it was the only Candlemas service in the whole country.

      I would have liked to travel to the very nice Candlemas service that they were having in Norwalk, Ct., (and I could have afforded the train ticket, but probably not the place ticket to Florida) but I was singing in the choir for the one we were holding here in New York, so I didn’t. Etc. etc.

      When you see that only thousands and not millions show up for the Urbi et Orbi in Rome, do you say, “Oh, the Catholic Church must only have a few thousand followers worldwide.”?

      1. Samuel, I think you’re missing the point that Dale’s trying to make. Perhaps the following example will clarify his logic. Less than 0.01% of all Catholics attend the typical OF papal Mass in Rome, even though it’s heavily publicized in advance (for instance, a Christmas or Easter Mass) and celebrated in the most exemplary and splendid fashion by the pope who draws the largest papal crowds in history. So we clearly must conclude that Catholics aren’t all that enthusiastic about the OF Mass, however well it’s celebrated.

      2. Apples to oranges Henry.
        Now, if only 0.01% of all catholics in Rome attended the papal masses then that would be different

        I guess Chris Grady is wrong, Fr. Allen isn’t the one who has the expertise in nastiness.

      3. My intent was to suggest the irrelevance of playing numbers games with the liturgy. But to play one more round . . . My guess would indeed be that–considering that so many in attendance at basilica Masses in Rome are tourists–no more than 0.01% of resident Romans is present at a typical such Mass. But what do I think this proves about Roman liturgy? Nothing, really.

        A more serious question would be . . . Why do so many folks here react with such agitation at any favorable mention of the traditional Latin liturgy? Precisely what about it seems so threatening? I’ve often wondered about this, and would actually like to know. Even as an EF enthusiast, I don’t see it going anywhere so rapidly as to threaten anyone.

      4. Well Henry, I posted to a comment by Fr. Allen and stated twice in that response it was my opinion and I also stated that it was an observation. And nowhere did I denigrate anyone.

        Now, my question to you is why must you react the way you do?
        And can you quote where did I say it was so threatening, and with agitation?
        And while your at it why are you and Sam are so hostile when someone comments? I have kept it gracious whereas you and he have made it personal.
        Hmmm…maybe that’s why some react w/ agitation…

      5. “Why do so many folks here react with such agitation at any favorable mention of the traditional Latin liturgy? Precisely what about it seems so threatening?”

        Maybe because some of you act like a bunch of right wing nuts and make personal attacks. So much like the SSPX. Some of you probably even deny the holocaust. Scary, very scary.

      6. Maybe because some of you act like a bunch of right wing nuts and make personal attacks. So much like the SSPX. Some of you probably even deny the holocaust. Scary, very scary.

        Now THAT is a personal attack. Pointing out that Dale is stating as fact things about the Mass canceled in DC last year based on no actual evidence is actually not a personal attack. Neither is pointing out that his conclusions about the popularity of the EF based on how many attended one Mass in Maimi are not conclusive a personal attack. These are both discussions of people’s arguments and stated positions on issues.

        Insinuating without evidence that the people you are talking to are Holocaust deniers. That IS a personal attack. As is labeling them “right-wing nuts”.

      7. Really Henry? I want you to go back to my original posting where I stated to Fr. Allen that what I posted was my opinion (twice) and that it was my observation, I attacked no one. Can you point out where I was threatened and reacted with agitation. Maybe it is you who is disapointed that only 1000 out of a 1.3 million member archdiocese who showed up. I’d say it was you and Sam who overreacted using personal ad hominems.

        “To go one more round….” I think you need to look in the mirror and you might find your answer.

      8. Sam, go back to # 54, this is critiquing?

        It’s called “circumstantial ad hominems”.
        Also, stating that someone deliberately “made up the facts” implies lying and dishonesty. Rather than discussing what I said, you made a judgment call about my motives in order to bolster your own argument.

        And you wonder many traddies are not well liked.

      9. Sam, go back to # 54, this is critiquing?

        As of 8:24 AM ET on 2/6, that’s your comment, so I don’t know what you’re referring to.

        It’s called “circumstantial ad hominems”.

        No, circumstantial ad hominem is when you attack someone’s argument as e.g. inconsistent with their personal behavior. My argument about the Mass in Washington doesn’t do that. It points out, not that your argument is inconsistent with something in your circumstances, but that it’s inconsistent with the known facts. Those known facts are not specially related to you, therefore, my argument is not ad hominem.

        Also, stating that someone deliberately “made up the facts” implies lying and dishonesty.

        When you use quotation marks, they should actually reflect what someone said. I wrote, “Making up facts you can’t possible know, ‘I don’t think most people do either,’ in support of your baseless theorizing about why the Mass was canceled doesn’t count as evidence.”

        It’s not perfectly phrased, but it’s about your arguments, it’s not about you, it’s not about your motives. It’s not personal. It is about the spreading of misinformation, agnostic of why that misinformation is being spread. Your argument doesn’t rely on facts, but on your imagination of possible reasons that aren’t grounded in the reality of what is known to have happened according to the statements of the participants. That imagination isn’t per se dishonest and I don’t judge your motives, but it does have the effect which I attributed to it, putting forth baseless arguments.

        Rather than discussing what I said, you made a judgment call about my motives in order to bolster your own argument.

        I made no judgment about your motives. You can’t point to one, because I didn’t make one.

      10. My my, Sam you are wrapped in your own self righeousness and you believe that what you state is the absolute truth and everybody is else is wrong and you are willing to believe your own excuses.
        I was always taught to beware of those who can never admit they’re wrong and now I have a better understanding of why some religious people fly planes into buildings.

        If you are representative of the reform of the reform movement I pray they separate themselves from you before you give them all a bad name.

      11. A more serious question would be . . . Why do so many folks here react with such agitation at any favorable mention of the traditional Latin liturgy? Precisely what about it seems so threatening? I’ve often wondered about this, and would actually like to know. Even as an EF enthusiast, I don’t see it going anywhere so rapidly as to threaten anyone.

        The feeling of threat probably generates from, as so many people like to state, that the church is not a democracy and the hierarchy could decide to eliminate the vernacular liturgy and adopt the Latin liturgy as the one and only valid liturgy. Many view the recent change to literal translation in English is a step in that direction, and it truly frightens many Catholics.

  15. Could someone explain why there was a protest about a future Papal visit to Cuba?
    Would those of you who have visited comment on my observation: many of the buildings are in a poor state of repair but the churches seem comparatively well maintained. I think it is the problem of communal ownership as opposed to individual ownership. At least the clergy and people know that they have to maintain the church buildings.
    My visit was short and a number of years ago so I claim no expertise.

    1. Miami has a large population of people who fled Cuba when the communists took power there. They, and their American born children, grandchildren, etc, are generally against any acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the current Cuban government or anything that might project that government in a good light, such as allowing a pope to visit. It’s one of the reasons that the US has maintained a boycott of Cuba – Americans are normally not allowed to perform any financial transactions related to Cuba, which means that they are not allowed to even travel to Cuba without permission from the US government. Even left leaning politicians in the US won’t venture near the possibility of removing this boycott because of the political effects that it could have.

      1. anything that might project that government in a good light, such as allowing a pope to visit

        I would hope people could see the Pope visiting a country as something other than a tacit approval of the country’s government. Is a doctor, making a house call to a patient with a disease, projecting that disease in a good light? It’s cruel to make the people of Cuba suffer for the injustices committed by their government by our inaction.

  16. Maybe we should stop for a minute and ask why people are attracted to the EF. Some would like to dismiss them as malcontents who are nostalgic for a “comfortable” Catholicism. The problem with that interpretation is that in my experience a large number of EF folk aren’t old enough to remember the Tridentine mass, so its not nostalgia. From what I’ve heard from them directly is that they were tired of the sloppy, uninspired, un-prayerful, even annoying OF masses that they were subjected to. That’s a shame because the OF doesn’t have to be that way. The additional criticism that these people want to watch “the show” rather than participate just isn’t true. The EF mass in my neighborhood includes 2 vernacular congregational hymns. The people sing the responses and the CREED (!). Usually the choir sings the ordinary, but sometimes the people sing that in chant. As far as quoting text from VII (see above), there are a number of sections that those that consider themselves progressive conveniently ignore. Also we should remember that when we disparage the EF, we are (albeit not intentionally, I hope) maligning most of the Eastern Rites, both Catholic and Orthodox, whose liturgical praxis is much more akin to the EF. Have you ever seen fully vested Byzantine Rite bishops? They make Latin bishops, even when vested for the EF, look like poor relatives!!!

  17. I remember being a server in the rotation for the weekday 7:15 AM Mass when I was much younger. The Mass lasted about 15 minutes. Sometimes I could make out what the priest said, sometimes I could not. I gave my memorized responses.

  18. Having never grown up with the Extraordinary Form, I can honestly say that I did not have a nostalgic longing for such a Mass. However, I can certainly appreciate what people see and long for in the Extraordinary Form. I also understand and appreciate with Pope Benedict means by the hermeneutic of continuity between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass.

    Those who wish to criticize traditional vesture, birrettas, and other such vesture obviously are not aware of the fact that these externals have never been banned by the Church. They simply fell into disuse in some areas due to unfortunate fads in some places in the Church.

    1. are not aware of the fact that these externals have never been banned by the Church.

      Not quite factual – When Martimort, et.al, with Pope Paul VI simplified the papal liturgy numerous items and practices (including liturgical costume) were abrogated or modified. These decrees may be found in Notitae and AAS. In a different sense one might say that when the Tridentine mass was reformed and elements that were once found therein and then were not found in the reformed rite of Mass – that these things were rubrically suppressed (as the cappa magna) since the new ordo does not call for their use. The law of experience tells us this logically: why did celebrants and bishops stop wearing the biretta and cappa magna during the liturgy after it was reformed? Because these things had been de facto suppressed by the rubrics. Once rubrics said wear this…then they didn’t.

      So yes, if your concern is brocade damask – you are correct, that is a contemporary re-emerging fad that was not suppressed, along with tye-dying. Otherwise we need to sharpen the pencil.

      1. And what was once supressed by liturgical law has now been reinstated by liturgical law. As UE states, laws and customs that pertain to the 1962 are to be observed. Laws promulagated post 1962 do not have effect on the celebration of the 1962 Missal. As of right now that has been clarified succinctly by the Holy Father in the document Universae Ecclesiae which clarifies that question which was raised after the issuance of the Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

    2. that these things were rubrically suppressed (as the cappa magna) since the new ordo does not call for their use.

      That’s simply not true. The Cappa Magna is referred to in the Ceremonial of Bishops for the ordinary form.

      The law of experience tells us this logically: why did celebrants and bishops stop wearing the biretta and cappa magna during the liturgy after it was reformed? Because these things had been de facto suppressed by the rubrics.

      Things happen in the liturgy all the time for reasons other than supression by the rubrics. The rubrics didn’t call for the almost complete elimation of Latin… but that happened. The rubrics didn’t call for a nearly universal switch from Roman to Gothic styled vestments in the U.S., yet that happened. Similarly with the Communion plate dissapearing (which, like the cappa magna, is in the rubrics!).

      1. I did not know that the Ceremonial of Bishops referred to the Cappa Magna – thanks for bringing that point to my attention and sharpening the pencil!

        Latin – yes we have Typicals in Latin and they can be used of course. We also have ratified requests for the use of vernaculars in the rites wholesale and books to the same effect.

        As to Roman and Gothic styled vestments that would fall under my brocade damask category. Those things of course were never “regulated” to begin with – which was my point. What was there – what wasn’t there. Not that I’m a rubricist – but the red can serve as points to consider in gauging changes in the ars celebrandi.

  19. I’ve been following this blog for a number of months now. It’s been very interesting and eye-opening. But I’ve been spending way too much time reading this and other blogs so I’m signing off so that I can focus on my true love – liturgical music. If anyone is interested in discussing that subject, please feel free to contact me at music4liturgy@comcast.net. Thanks, all.

  20. After all, the predictions that there would be a great falling away among the faithful following the introduction of the new translation have proven unfounded;

    Purely as an anecdote, but I was a little startled at Mass yesterday to realize that very few people were giving any responses during Mass. People were not reciting the proper words, nor were they consulting the laminated folders. I’m in the choir, so it is hard to judge, but I think people have stopped singing during the Gloria, Sanctus, etc. This was on SuperBowl Sunday when many skip Mass, so the group I was listening to would appear to be the more dedicated.
    I think it is way too soon to measure the results of the new translation.

    1. I agree. After 40 years, we’ll surely have as clear an idea about the current new translation as we now have about the 1973 translation, and likely will then be ready for yet another translation.

      1. I hope that sooner than that, we’ll have real data on the current translation. Most discussions on the effect of the 1973 translation seem to be based more on opinion than data. For example – was it the 1973 translation that drove people out the doors, or Humanae Vitae?

      2. 40 years of English mimicking the syntax of Latin! Professional translators would not approve of such an inferior product. It won’t take 40 years for the penny to drop. 40 months would be more like it. Let’s hope it won’t take even that long.

  21. 1. The comments have been very disappointing, mostly because they haven’t been on the topic. In fact the discussion doesn’t really seem to have a topic. Moreover it far exceeds others I have been disappointed in because of its negative personal tone.
    2. The letter to priests and seminarians indicated that “by becoming more familiar with and deeply rooted in the Mass of the 1962 Missale Romanum, we can better understand the Missale Romanum of Paul VI and its accompanying ars celebrandi.” To my way of thinking, this is the issue worth discussing, the issue that has NOT been discussed. Here are just some questions that arise: Will performing the old help us understand the new? Does participating in a Pontifical High Mass accomplish this, since this seldom happens in a parish? This particular celebration only provides data that in turn need to be questioned, e.g. what is the liturgical and/or sacramental purpose of the various rituals? Since they have historical roots, why were they introduced and how did they develop? And how exactly does our participating in such a ceremony without any critical reflection afterwards help us understand the Mass of the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, since in fact the latter called for simplifying much of what was included in this ceremony? What exactly would someone learn?
    3. Finally I would like to comment on why I am disappointed and discouraged when bishops celebrate in this fashion, no matter what the reason they give. I am disappointed because it sends a message to priests that in fact this is the preferred way to celebrate. I am disappointed on behalf of the many lay people who have talked to me about what is happening in their parishes, as priests, taking their lead from the hierarchy, go about changing the current OF into a version of the EF, albeit in English, as though it were theirs to manipulate. The effect in their parishes they report is to diminish the active participation called for by Vatican II.

    1. it sends a message to priests that in fact this is the preferred way to celebrate……..priests, taking their lead from the hierarchy, go about changing the current OF into a version of the EF, albeit in English, as though it were theirs to manipulate.

      I agree with that assessment, and think you’ve put your finger on the problem. If parishes had a greater say in selecting their pastors, and dioceses had a greater say in selecting bishops, I think we’d see far less emphasis on the EF. Many causes have been put forth for the shortage of men willing to enter the priesthood, but I wonder how many young men look at higher clerics seemingly determined to turn back the clock and decide it’s not for them.
      I think there is room for many variations on liturgy; it’s when one person’s tastes are imposed on an entire parish that I have a problem.

    2. Father, I’ll bite at your request because, as you say, I think your post might be one of the first that doesn’t seem to be personal in nature.

      1) Agreed.
      2) I think I understand what you’re getting at here. There is an awful lot of extra ceremonial there, most of which (as you say) isn’t applicable to a “parish Mass” (unless, of course, the bishop is there.) I suppose I draw other conclusions, namely: of course +Wenski is a bishop, so according to the old form, he could ONLY celebrate this way. He could do a pontifical low Mass, but who really wants any kind of low Mass as a model? As you mention, one of the goals of the MR of Paul VI is precisely to encourage sung celebration. So, he’s encouraging continuity in NOT encouraging a low Mass with a bunch of pious hymns.
      3) This seems a bit of a non sequitur to me: as you mention above, this cannot specifically be the way a priest celebrates the EF, since he is not a prelate. Also, you don’t necessarily define what is “the preferred way to celebrate”: the EF? I don’t think that’s what +Wenski is doing, unless he is suddenly doing all his public Masses as EF.

      I contend, regardless of form, that any diminishing of active participation is more often due to a lack of catechesis and mystagogy.

      As far as Brigid’s concern, it’s never really been that way unless you want to go back to the bad old days of lay boards: in that case, it’s just switching from (benevolent?) dictatorship to oligarchy! I don’t think you’d see more or less emphasis on the EF or anything else, and certainly the percentage of clerics celebrating the EF is very low. Finally, the “EF” isn’t necessarily a personal taste: it is, whether one likes it or not, a legitimate option for celebration, all things considered, according to the directive of a pope, much as the Missal of Paul VI was implemented by papal fiat.

      1. Brigid, actually the point that I was making is that things seem to be trending more “tradition friendly”, even among the laity that are young. If that is the case, then those who would be marginalized would be progressives. Regardless of my personal outlook, I’m not convinced that a lay board would truly represent the outlook of all in the parish, but rather the most vocal group. In addition, there would be a tendency to “choose” charismatic priests, which (if we look at the Saints AND the recent “celebrity priest” problems) isn’t always the best policy…

        That said, of course there are times when we all share your sentiments!

      2. Bruce – it depends upon what nations you are speaking about – Some Swiss bishops are still chosen based upon local recommendations.

    3. Fr. – would suggest that there was an attempt to more globally respond at Number 32 above – Feb. 5th: 2:28 PM. Granted, this comment does not make any distinction between a bishop or parish pastor celebrating the EF – my issue transcends that.

      1. And some German bishops also. The cathedral chapter is provided with a list of three candidates by the Vatican from which the selection is made by the chapter.

        Papa Wojtyła infamously tried to subvert the system, in Chur, Switzerland, in 1988 when the arch-conservative Wolfgang Haas was appointed Coadjutor. The hierarchs had to enter the Cathedral walking over the people who had lain on the ground and prostrated themselves to protest. Eventually the maxim promoveatur ut amoveatur had to be invoked. The rest is history.

    4. Father Ron
      I think you are right about the quality of comments. It does show at least that the participants care about the subject so there is that to be grateful for.
      May I offer a partial answer?
      One point is that those who are young and have little or no experience of the old form of mass may not understand why the council believed that reform was needed.
      Another is simply the benefit of wider knowledge and experience. Greater knowledge of the development of the Mass over the years should help appreciation of the current OF. Unless one takes the view that that is fixed for ever then one will envisage future change making such historical understanding more valuable.
      I suspect that the abuses we now see in the OF were matched in the years before the council in ways that are not now appreciated: those who take the trouble to offer the EF Mass are likely to do so with great care. This may have been another factor in promoting change. Similarly modern abuses provoke nostalgia for a more reverent Mass as remembered or imagined from the past.
      Now if the Mass of 1969 was an attempt at reform it is possible that parts of that were more successful than others. Again understanding of the EF may help here.
      Finally I think that it is right to reach out to those most attached to the EF Mass: they should be encouraged to stay in the family of the church.
      Cheers to you Father

    5. Fr. Ron:

      Will performing the old help us understand the new?

      I would say yes: knowing where we’ve been (even if it wasn’t us personally) helps us understand we are now. Knowledge of the ceremonial then helps us understand its purpose today: understanding the ceremonial that has been retained, and that which has been altered or removed.

      It sends a message to priests that in fact this is the preferred way to celebrate.

      How so? To me it sends the message that there is some value in this other form of celebration (apart from sanctification and glorification), maybe something we can learn from it for our own personal sake or for the liturgy’s sake.

  22. Dr. Rodriguez,

    I live not 90 minutes from one of the nation’s major seminaries. I also happen to be a member of an FSSP parish.

    Yesterday, at our parish, our pastor offered a Solemn High Mass. The MC, deacon, and subdeacon were all fourth year seminarians from the said seminary. Two weeks ago, we had another Solemn High Mass; again, the MC, deacon, and subdeacon were fourth year seminarians. Other seminarians have served the same roles. EACH of them come from separate dioceses. We’re privileged with such a Mass perhaps twelve times per year, with about eight different young men.

    I’m friends with several of these gentlemen. I know how many men are in their respective ordination classes. From what I they’ve told me, and their conversation is very detailed, a full two-thirds of each class contain men who intend to offer the Extraordinary Form when ordained. When not celebrating the EF, they intend to do what they can to implement the Reform of the Reform of the OF in a Traditional direction. Even more importantly, each of them hail from a diocese whose bishop is friendly toward the EF and is fully aware of their intentions.

    “Typhoon?” Batten down the hatches.

  23. the point that I was making is that things seem to be trending more “tradition friendly”, even among the laity that are young.

    I would hesitate to agree or disagree with that statement based on my personal observations; we tend to self-select the communities we travel in and the data we collect. What is needed is a good, solid survey of various age groups and nationalities. Such a survey should also include people who are disaffected by some aspect of the liturgy, whether it is the OF or the Reform of the Reform. Even then, one must deal with the maxim that “the Church is not a democracy”. Of course, if the liturgy or changes in the liturgy are driving people away, one would hope those in charge would take that into consideration.

    1. Of course, if the liturgy or changes in the liturgy are driving people away, one would hope those in charge would take that into consideration.

      A lot of people would say they have taken it into account.

      Me, I think they’re doing a “wait and see”. If their goal is to reestablish the Latin mass as the new everyday mass, they know that they can’t switch back all at once. Well, they could, but they’d lose more people than if they gradually switch.

  24. Dr. Rodriguez,

    I live not 90 minutes from one of the nation’s major seminaries. I also happen to be a member of an FSSP parish.

    Yesterday, at our parish, our pastor offered a Solemn High Mass. The MC, deacon, and subdeacon were all fourth year seminarians from the said seminary. Two weeks ago, we had another Solemn High Mass; again, the MC, deacon, and subdeacon were fourth year seminarians. Other seminarians have served the same roles. EACH of them come from separate dioceses. We’re privileged with such a Mass perhaps twelve times per year, with about eight different young men.

    I’m friends with several of these gentlemen. I know how many men are in their respective ordination classes. From what I they’ve told me, and their conversation is very detailed, a full two-thirds of each class contain men who intend to offer the Extraordinary Form when ordained. When not celebrating the EF, they intend to do what they can to implement the Reform of the Reform of the OF in a Traditional direction. Even more importantly, each of them hail from a diocese whose bishop is friendly toward the EF and is fully aware of their intentions.

    “Typhoon?” Batten down the hatches.

    1. Hello JD. I hope you are representative of the reform of the reform movement! You can discuss issues and disagree without being disagreeable.
      First, congratulations on being in the seminary. Good luck and God bless!.
      Second, can you tell me what you mean when you state “they intend to do what they can to implement the Reform of the Reform of the OF in a Traditional direction”?
      That is a loaded statement. Does that mean ad orientem? Kneeling only? Communion on the tongue only?
      As I understand it B16 has not ordered that any of these things be completely implemented in the OF. Now, I think if you want to celebrate the EF then go ahead but to forcefully implement these things in an OF is another matter.
      I look forward to your response.

    2. “EACH of them come from separate dioceses”

      “Even more importantly, each of them hail from a diocese whose bishop is friendly toward the EF and is fully aware of their intentions.” JD Kabel.

      Ms/Mr Kabel, if you have such difficulty with basic English grammar, one wonders how you fare with ecclesiastical Latin at your privileged EF events.

      1. Mary
        Forgive us our typos as we forgive those who make typos too.
        Beside who says that English is JD’s first language?
        Grüsse

      2. Mr Haydon, “besides” is the adverb, “beside” the preposition. I imagine you fare quite well in a Tridentine context.

      3. Mary is right.
        My typing error.
        If we all look a little harder for our typing errors we might also be politer to each other.
        I never enjoyed French dictation at school. The trouble with spell check program is that sometimes it puts in a word with quite a different meaning.
        Well I expect to need further forgiveness.

        On the other hand Tridentine enthusiasts seem to be keen on getting things exactly right so I might not fit in as well as she suggests.
        Kismet.

    3. Mr. Kabel,

      Thanks for an interesting report, one which corroborates accounts I hear regarding seminarians at three major seminaries, each of which attracts seminarians from several dioceses representing different regions of the country.

      The figure of two-thirds sounds about right. Certainly, a majority of the seminarians in these nationally prominent seminaries are interested in celebrating the EF Mass, though they are fully committed to the OF Mass which they realize will be their larger focus as diocesan parish priests. Indeed, for many of them, their zeal for perfecting celebration of the ordinary Mass may be a principal motivation for their interest in the extraordinary Mass, having bought into the prospect of “mutual enrichment” for the improvement of parish liturgy.

      Regarding the Miami pontifical Mass with which this thread began, it appeared to me that about 30 seminarians attended in choir, and I’ve heard that at least this many Miami seminarians regularly or occasionally participate in EF Masses in the south Florida area. Obviously, these fine young seminarians represent the future of the Archdiocese of Miami, and the antidote to some of its past problems. What a wonderful inspiration must have been this marvelous liturgy celebrated in their presence by their archbishop! What better a role for a bishop to not merely exhort his priests but to demonstrate a personal commitment to promotion and support of glorious liturgy? I understand that his own cathedral liturgy in the ordinary form exemplifies this same commitment.

    4. Finally,it occurs to me that the future of the Church is so bright precisely because of the current generation of seminarians like these, who are once again filling some of our best seminaries. These young men, rather than weary older priests and bishops of the generations preceding them, will determine the course for the future. Truly, Pope Benedict XVI has loosed in the Church a force for change and renewal that not even he or his successor as pope could reverse.

  25. Thanks to JD Kabel (#93) for affirming the third point I offered. Do the people of God in the pews have no role in determining how the liturgy as given in Missale Romanum III is actually celebrated? Treating the people as passive objects of the priest’s choices does not seem to me either his right or very respectful of their baptismal priesthood.

    1. Silly boy, now go back to your pew, sit down, and wait for the collection basket. We’ll tell you what God wants. How could you possibly know the best way to worship God? (said tongue-in-cheek, of course).

  26. Here’s something to ponder, and I’m truly asking for your opinion.

    Today, do you believe that traditionalist Catholics are more tolerant or less tolerant of modernist Catholics than modernist Catholics are tolerant of traditionalist Catholics?

    In my view, there’s probably a large group in the middle who either lean traditionalist or lean modernist, and who are tolerant of the others as long as one side doesn’t attempt to forbid the other side from worshipping the way they wish. It’s only the fringe, on both ends of the spectrum, who seem to actively insist that their way is the only way, and that the other side needs to be stopped with their practices made “illegal” under church laws.

    We’ve seen, both after Vatican II and more recently, that trying to impose uniformity causes discord, anger, people losing faith, and in a few cases, people leaving the church. In the past traditionalists felt threatened, now modernists are feeling threatened and are being forced to take an anti-traditionalist stance because they feel that if they don’t their way of worship will be eliminated, or at a very minimum, they’ll lose some of what they already have. Many people view the recent missal changes as having lost something, and they’re afraid they’ll lose more.

    I grew up after the changeover to the vernacular and only ever experienced mass with the 1973 missal translation, and I never knew that there were people who didn’t like it. It’s the only way that the church has ever been for me (and most people from their late 40s and younger), and that is my preference. But, I don’t want traditionalists to be forbidden from practicing the faith their way, especially if it deepens their relationship with God.

    Both groups need to back off and let the equilibrium return. The belief that the church can achieve 100% uniformity of belief and practices is a fairytale, and trying to artificially impose it from either direction is only going to cause more discord.

    There needs to be more ability for the church to handle traditional worship as well as modern worship and still believe that they are one church. In addition to the Latin form of the mass, I’d still view a traditional vernacular liturgy as well as a modern vernacular liturgy as the way to achieve a more catholic church.

  27. Okey-doke. I’ll speak my best native Mark Twain this time – just for Mary.

    I was simply trying to be polite and squeeze what I was saying into the smallest possible space. Mea culpa, Mary Burke, for my grammatically epic fail, and kudos, Jeff Pinyan, for your gentlemanly sentiment.

    Dr. Rodriguez, I’m afraid I’m not a seminarian. As I said, I live an hour and a half from the seminary. I can also tell you precisely what I mean by “Reform of the Reform in a Traditional direction.”

    I have had many long conversations with these men. Without going into the “why” of their reasoning, I can certainly answer your questions and tell you the “what” they intend to do.

    Before I do that, it might be helpful for you to know that each of these men are planning their “First Mass” after ordination as a Solemn High Mass. I could in fact give you locations for several of them.

    As to your specific questions, the answer is “yes,” but not by sudden and brutal imposition. Some will have circumstances where they can implement the whole gamut of restoration immediately. Others will take more time. Yet none of these men are club-swinging reactionaries. The first concern of all of them is “the People of God in the pews.” They have all emphasized to me the pastoral necessity of charitable instruction – especially if restoration is to take hold of the heart. I’ve had more than one mention the example of St. Francis de Sales. They will not make the mistake that was made forty-five years ago. This is intended to last.

    The key, in each of these cases, is that the Ordinaries of these men are of exactly the same frame of mind. They have shared with me that their bishops have all read “Spirit of the Liturgy.” The RofR will unfold with their support. It can’t do otherwise.

    1. I asked JD specifically:
      “can you tell me what you mean when you state “they intend to do what they can to implement the Reform of the Reform of the OF in a Traditional direction”?
      That is a loaded statement. Does that mean ad orientem? Kneeling only? Communion on the tongue only?

      And your surprising response:
      “As to your specific questions, the answer is “yes”

      Sorry JD, not quite so fast. They CANNOT unilaterally demand that communicants kneel “only” and receive on the tongue “only”. The GIRM forbids it. Nor can they unilaterally say Mass ad orientem.

      I think this fits nicely with what Sean Parker commented above on #101
      If communicants want to receive kneeling and on the tongue at an OF mass they may do so but to require it of everyone then they need to attend an EF mass. Otherwise, you saw what happened to the diocese of Phoenix when the cup was partially withdrawn? There is no need to demand these things when they are already available in the EF.

      Even Fr Allen states below: But I would agree when someone who isn’t progressive and proclaims to “say the black, do the red” manipulates the OF Mass into something that makes it something else, this is just as bad as the progressives who do it in their own ways.

      1. And…
        as Fr Chochol states :“I am disappointed on behalf of the many lay people who have talked to me about what is happening in their parishes, as priests, taking their lead from the hierarchy, go about changing the current OF into a version of the EF, albeit in English, as though it were theirs to manipulate.”–Fr. Ron Chochol

    2. Mr. Kabel – have seen and heard much the same. Two years ago the primary formation director of a large theologate in the Midwest sadly described how someordinands were spending months planning EF High Masses or even TLM as their first masses. Rather than focus on pastoral learning or preparing to work in their first parish assignments, they planned elaborate “shows”. He described his dismay and shock as some competed to “perform” the best “show”. His experience is that these guys haven’t the slightest comcept of the People of God in the pews”! unless it is to “paternalistically teach” them the “correct” way.

      He has lived through a number of ordination classes that have been marked by this behavior. And he has known the parish reactions the following years – these guys are confronted by active lay parish councils, liturgy/music groups, pastors, families in elementary schools. He has to pick up the pieces because these guys can’t relate to women; don’t or can’t participate in groups; reject or are unwilling to accept current parish practices creating divisions and resentments.

      It is a “dramatic” battle between ecclesiologies and the nature of the priesthood (servant vs. cultic minister). It is played out in parish meetings; at Sunday liturgies, etc.

      For a cou;e of years, the presiding bishop (now in Rome)personally influenced these guys subverting the formation and educational directions of the seminary staff.

      This situation is a “time-bomb” waiting to happen. It is the reverse of what I experienced after many years of formation direction and realizing that candidates expectations and my experience where like Venus and Mars esp. when they could quote; if not, get direct episcopal support.

      53 years since John called the council – from R. Gaillardetz: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13245

      What you describe by these guys is an inability to understand the church of VII. Per Gaillardetz:

      The…

      1. cont….

        – “The conduct of the council teaches us that a precondition for genuine ecclesial discernment is the conviction that none of us individually has all the answers. We discover the guidance of the Spirit and penetrate the power and significance of God’s word through ecclesial conversation and the opportunity to interact with believers who offer us different insights, experiences and questions.” (point made by Dale)
        – “A second dynamic evident at the council was the bishops’ commitment to humble learning. In the century before the council it had become common to divide the church into two parts: a teaching church (ecclesia docens) made up of the clergy and a learning church (ecclesia discens) consisting of the laity. This way of imagining the church dangerously overlooked the fact that bishops do not have a monopoly on divine truth. They do not receive supernaturally infused knowledge at their episcopal ordination.”
        – “Here again the council’s conduct and attitude offer insight for our modern church, for we still hear far too many apocalyptic pronouncements regarding “a culture of death” and a “toxic secularism.” The council reminds us that we must not yield in the face of evil, but neither can we close our eyes to the signals of grace always present where humans seek justice and truth and ask the great questions about life’s meaning and ultimate significance.” (JD’s description is of a group that thinks they have all the answers – rejecting the principles of VII)

      2. It all depends on who you ask, I suppose. Isn’t the “presiding bishop” (what are we, Episcopalian?) ultimately and immediately in charge of the formation of his and any seminarians attending the seminary in his diocese? So, really, he is the “primary formation director” and it is his job to support to put into line those who have been delegated to do his work. If he was “undermining” their work, maybe it was because there was something wrong with it and completely cleaning house was easier said than done.

        I do not discount the fact that there are people who go into the priesthood as “lone rangers” that are going to just get in there and “fix” everything; and I do think that is not a good idea no matter what way you roll.

        That said, this itself is a loaded concept and highly subjective. To one set of people, Father might be an unyielding jerk that doesn’t listen to “God’s People in the Pews” and to the other set (in the same parish) he is finally someone who is willing to stand up to that fascistic oligarchy that has de facto ran the place for the last 40 years. There are a lot of different things that can be said for a turn of a phrase, especially if you know the situations from different angles…

        If only that Most Emminent Lord Cardinal had more time to bring about his vision for that place…

  28. “I am disappointed on behalf of the many lay people who have talked to me about what is happening in their parishes, as priests, taking their lead from the hierarchy, go about changing the current OF into a version of the EF, albeit in English, as though it were theirs to manipulate.”–Fr. Ron Chochol

    Here I would agree with Fr. Chochol although a bit nuanced. There has been manipulation of the OF Mass according the the whims of priests, liturgy committees and even entire parishes for well over 40 years, but in a direction that I suspect many who are in the progressive theology of the liturgy would approve. But I would agree when someone who isn’t progressive and proclaims to “say the black, do the red” manipulates the OF Mass into something that makes it something else, this is just as bad as the progressives who do it in their own ways.

    However, Bishops are the chief liturgists of their dioceses and this has certain prerogatives and Archbishop Wenski has exercised his and is using it as a teachable moment for his priests and laity. He’s manipulated nothing. Now if a priest watching a progressive bishop celebrate the OF of the Mass begins to use a miter, crozier and skull cap for his Masses, then I’d say that priest is a literalist when it comes to imitating bishops. But if a priest and his congregation after attending a Pontifical Solemn Sung EF Mass starts being as careful and intentional in following the design of the OF and “saying (singing) the black and doing the red” with style, flair and what is allowed by way of norms, rubrics and liturgical law for the OF, then the EF has had a powerful influence upon that parish community and there is mutual enrichment.

    1. Fr Allen, don’t you think there is a lot of confusion because of semantics?
      What you have written in # 114 makes since to me. I don’t have a problem w/ it. (I even offered a compromise to you concerning kneeling at the prev post without involving kneelers).
      Look, there is nothing worse than sloppy presiding. There is nothing wrong with a good OF, pipe organ and a latin hymn occasionally. The EF doesn’t have a monopoly on good presiding.
      However, as you stated above when loose canons begin manipulating things in the individual parishes because they think that the EF is automatically better then there is a problem.

      1. I agree with you in this comment but I would not be as liberal as you in placing a kneeler (although I advocate it) unless the bishop approves it. Our parish’s OF Masses are by the book and all the options available are made available to our people. Our EF Mass once a month on Sunday is by the book too. We don’t have a mixed version of the two in one Mass and all our OF Masses are facing the people (although we do have a very modified so-called “Benedictine altar arrangement”) The major mutual enrichment for the OF Mass is that our cantor and/or choir chants the official Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons in addition to a procession hymn and other anthems at the offertory and Communion. As for the EF Mass, the mutual enrichment here is that I’ve strongly urged those who attend to speak and sing all the parts of this Mass that the altar servers and choir say/sing.

      2. Fr. McDonald: Though some (like me) may recall dialogue Masses before Vatican II, I think you are correct in citing the level of vocal participation common in EF Mass today as a case of mutual enrichment.

        Although the practice enjoys Vatican sanction, my own Latin Mass community has occasionally been criticized in blog comments for the fact that our people sing the Pater Noster congregationally (even more robustly than they sing the Gloria and Credo). Surely this reflects the fact that a majority of our members are young folks who grew up singing the Lord’s Prayer in OF Mass (and many still attend OF Mass frequently, some daily), and it would never occur to them not to join in.

        I accept at Sunday high Mass the level of “active participation” you suggest–though I am probably almost alone here in endorsing also the quiet and intensely prayerful low Mass early on a weekday morning. But as I watched the Miami Mass, it suddenly struck me as especially appropriate for the bishop to chant the Pater Noster alone (as Ab. Wenski did) at a solemn pontifical Mass, representing his flock in addressing our Father. Somehow along the lines that “the Mass is where the bishop is”, and all that. Though I’ve never heard anyone make this particular distinction. And somehow it seems to fit with (though logically unrelated to) the fact that only at a solemn pontifical Mass does the celebrant himself also read the Gospel simultaneous with the deacon chanting it (though this used to be done more generally).

      3. Henry, as an aside, 1958 De musica sacra provides the indult for everyone to say the Pater Noster together in the EF at low Mass. I am almost positive this permission extended to sung Mass as well, but I can’t find that document. In any case, what a crazy thing for people to get upset about. It’s not as if Jesus himself taught us how to pray using those words or anything, right? 😉

      4. Dale,

        Just a friendly reminder to you and others that referring to the various postings that people make here by the posting number isn’t the best idea. The system renumbers the messages as people post replies to previously posted messages.

        For example, if someone posts new message #1 and you post new message #2, then then someone replies to #1, the reply will become #2, and your posting is changed to #3.

        If you want to refer to a prior posting, the better way to do it is to mention the person’s name, and then the date and time of the posting, since those don’t change. 🙂

      5. Thanks for the reminder Sean!
        I think I had posted almost immediately after he did hoping to catch him while he was still on the site.
        Darn message numbers.

  29. Fr Allen, I had posted at
    “The proper posture is standing”—of course, but from him?’
    that a compromise might be available without using kneelers since that was the discussion at the time.

    My feeling is that kneelers can be a dangerous obstacle especially when you have lots of communicants coming forward, priests and EOMC’s. Also, kneeling in line can be a distraction and I was always concerned that the elderly would lose balance and fall forward onto me or someone else.
    So….
    why not rope off the first pew then at communion remove the rope and when a communicant comes forward to kneel for communion they can slip into the first pew are receive. It’s safe, non distracting and they can even stay there a few moments before the next person slides in to kneel for communion. There is usually a minister close by or positioned at the first pew in many churches anyway that could offer communion to them.
    Everybody is happy, no prie dieu kneeler distractions, danger of falling over, kneeling in line and no altar rails. Those who want to kneel can do so in a respectful manner they deserve.

    1. I also wanted to say that we have altar rails built into churches already, it’s called the first pew and every church has a first pew. It’s handy and available and we progressives won’t complain that traditional barrier altar rails are making a resurgence.
      Everybody wins n’est-ce pas?

      1. At most EF Masses I’ve attended in churches without an altar rail, the first pew has indeed been used as the communion rail. Though I noticed at the Miami Mass that almost everyone knelt on the floor in front of the altar–there were just a few prie deux at one side. Fortunately, the congregation seemed rather youngish, since I noticed no one who received standing because they could not kneel on the floor with no rail to lean on.

      2. Dale Rodriguez on February 7, 2012 – 11:53 am

        Dale, I don’t mind the “use the first pew” rule when it’s physically possible. However, in many churches the space between the first pew and the first kneeler is not very wide. I’m an average-height man (5′ 9″) and in some older churches I find there’s not a lot of room to kneel. For the “use the first pew” rule to work in a good number of churches with fixed pews, the first-row kneelers would have to be extended at least one foot from the first pew. I doubt that this modification would be possible in many churches, given that even minor modifications can be expensive.

        A better option is portable rails. One EF community I have worshiped with has long, easily movable wooden kneelers which are brought out before Mass. Each extended kneeler accommodates about three communicants at a time. Space is left for the priest to enter and exit the sanctuary. Also, those who are of limited mobility can kneel briefly, receive, and then have an usher assist them as they rise from the rail. Granted, these wooden kneelers aren’t as sturdy as a real rail, but must suffice where a rail is not present.

        Just as the practice of standing communion in the hand is important for many progressive Catholics, kneeling communion on the tongue is very important for traditionalist piety. I’ve seen people wince in pain just to kneel briefly and receive Communion. These people would not be able to use the first pew in many churches. Please don’t deny the pious gesture of kneeling to those who greatly desire it, even if altar rails in any form are antithetical to progressive liturgical thought.

      3. Jordan and Henry, hopefully they will bring out portable altar rails for an EF mass because kneeling is part of the rubric. My suggestion about using the first pew is for OF masses as a compromise. Prie dieu kneelers can be a distraction and an obstacle when parishoners come and go. Jordan, as a minister of communion I have NEVER denied communion to anyone kneeling and helped them get up, a bit tricky while holding a ciborium.
        I have taken to task both conservatives who asked to deny communion to someone because they “heard” a rumor about them and liberals who don’t want to offer to those who receive on the tongue.
        Years ago, for some reason and I don’t know why, at one of our churches a one person extension w/ kneeler was added to the front pew on either side (without a seat). An inexpensive way to compromise.
        Jordan, you state “Please don’t deny the pious gesture of kneeling to those who greatly desire it” and I agree but I am a great believer in receiving in the hand, that is my pious gester, if I received in the hand at an EF would my gesture be respected or would I be humiliated in front of everybody? (without resorting to legalisms ie allowed at OF but not at EF).

  30. Sean Parker :
    Nastiness? Chris speaks the truth. Allan McDonald does have both

    Leave them, Sean. I accurately named these people “prophets of doom” and “nasties” on this blog months ago. They think true Catholicism equals the reign of nastiness, and nothing will throw them off that scent.

    1. So far it’s really just your comments that look nasty. Maybe you are holding some grudge from months ago, but it seems like other people are trying to have a normal conversation and you are bitter about it. Maybe relax for a while?

      1. No, Mary, actually if you go through and read them they’re all about other commenters’ personalities.

      2. And Emily the interesting thing about virtual judgmentalism is that none of us really knows the other–our comments are all one dimensional aspects of who we are. I’m sure we would be more Christian and less pagan with each other if we could speak face to face–maybe that will be in store for us in future developments of posting comments! 🙂

      3. Actually Emily, that’s not the case at all. Someone here described his contributions as incisive. The blog is so much the better for them.

      4. Mary, one could say a shard of glass one steps on is somehow incisive, or at least cutting. That doesn’t make it pleasant.

    2. How true, Fr. Allen. The people who to spit venom and throw virtual bricks online are probably perfectly normal, mild-mannered folks in real life. Once they dial on to the internet a sort of Walter Mitty – cum – Mr. Hyde thing takes place. I wonder if the same people are also especially prone to road rage; that would make for an interesting study.

      Bruce Ludwick: heh, indeed!

    3. The best thing to do is ignore Chris. Everything he says and does is tolerated, so you’ll just frustrate yourself.

      There are people who actually want to talk about liturgy – you’ll use your time better if you engage them.

      1. The problem is that Chris’ contributions are all too rare these days. I hope we can look forward to more of the coming in Lent, the springtime of the liturgical year.

      2. Writing about me (along with the other various communications you dedicate to my existence) is hardly ignoring me, Jack.

      3. I ignore you as much as I can, but my conscience can only allow so much.

        People who aren’t familiar with your postings need to know that you cannot engage in reasoned arguments and have to resort to rudeness to try instead.

  31. Chris IS CORRECT!

    Go to Fr. McDonald’s site at “Southern Orders” and compare what he says there to what he says here.

    Emily, for someone who claims to take the high road your posts are sometimes low brow particularly about sanity. Someone could say the same about your posts.

    Chris, KEEP POSTING!

    1. Go to Fr. McDonald’s site at “Southern Orders” and compare what he says there to what he says here.

      I’m pretty familiar with both, and can’t guess what you’re driving at. Care to elaborate?

    1. Yes, Kim. Many thanks. I clicked on McDonald’s site to find the following. This is just a sample of what he attributes to the Second Vatican Council:

      “Lack of backbone in the appropriate use of Church discipline, public excommunication, censure, and the like

      “Vatican II help create apostates such as Nancy Pelosi and Katherine Sebelious, Joseph Biden, Ted Kennedy and other public but infamous Catholics who trash the Church and her true identity and all have done so without impunity or the threat of excommunication the possibility of hell fire and damnation”

      This can’t be the same man who, in urbane, suave and measured tones (with occasional lapses of English grammar) appeals for Catholics to disagree with one another while not being disagreeable.

      What a revelation! What a charade! What a contradiction!

  32. Well, Jack, perhaps Chris is not all bad. For instance, his avatar keeps before us the hope of many for our next pope.

    1. Henry, please look again. Chris’s avatar is a picture of a clown from a “Vatican II clown Mass”. I have it from an informed source that Chris only uses that clown avatar to discourage liturgical abuse.

    1. The avatar is a picture of a clown, Henry, a clown. You can tell from the floppy suit and the puffy tassels on the hat.

      This is known as the hermeneutic of clowntinuity.

  33. Mr. Grady always writes in the spirit of the classical Roman authors. With a few well-chosen words he can demolish so many pretentious effusions which can be found on this blog.

    Come to think of it, his style is evocative of a well-crafted Roman collect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *