The Progressive Pandemic

The impending Eucharistic Revival in the U. S. Catholic Church promises to be a very ambitious undertaking indeed, purporting to accomplish nothing less than the revitalization of the entire U. S. Church. As described by Bishop Andrew Cozzens at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) General Assembly in June 2020, the goal is :

“To renew the Church by enkindling a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist” [1]

The catalysts for the Revival include the impact on church attendance of the Covid-19 pandemic and the disconcerting survey from a couple of years ago, indicating only a minority of Catholics believe in a fundamental article of the faith, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. [2, 3] Apparently, therefore, it has been decided that if we can just manage to explain the reality of the Eucharist to Catholics, and somehow bring them to an encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist, then the ills of the Church will be overcome. Accordingly, the USCCB 2021 -2024 Strategic Plan includes a plan for a National Eucharistic Congress:

“The Committee for Evangelization and Catechesis is coordinating the effort to explore, plan and execute a National Eucharistic Congress. Declining Mass attendance, the lack of understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and increasing religious disaffiliation are major challenges facing the Church today. The committee has recognized that the return to the Eucharist as the “source and summit” of who we are and what we do as Catholics is key to revitalization.” [4]

But I have some concerns. What evidence is there supporting the effectiveness of this approach for renewing the faith? The brief references to the disorders in the Church in the Strategic Plan don’t accurately characterize the gravity of the situation. The Church in the U. S. has been deteriorating for decades. Average weekly Mass attendance declined from 75% in 1955 to less than 24% in 2015. [5, 6] In 2019, average weekly Mass attendance had declined even further to about 20%, except for Christmas and Easter and some of the Holy Days of Obligation. [7] In 2008, only 12% of Catholics went to Confession once a year, and 45% had never been to confession. [8] Surveys by Pew Research from 2018 – 2020 report a majority of Catholics support contraception, legal abortion, homosexuality, “gay marriage,” and reception of the Eucharist by the divorced and remarried. [9, 10, 11]

Viewed in the context of the perspective provided by these surveys, it is clear the loss of faith in the Real Presence has been accompanied by severe damage to the whole of the Catholic faith. The Pew surveys reflect a rejection of Christian morality by a majority of Catholics. This is a problem which cannot be solved by a concerted effort at education about the Real Presence or creating encounters with the Blessed Sacrament.

It seems obvious then that Revival actions should be guided by a clear understanding as to what has caused the loss of faith. Such an understanding would then ensure the Revival addresses the heart of the matter, instead of simply promoting transitory experiences which may feel good but do not bring about the desired conversion. At the June 2020 USCCB meeting Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha broached the idea of conducting research to identify the most effective means of reaching Catholics for the Revival. [12] I submit we know neither the causes of nor effective means to address the loss of faith: the problem should be studied in detail.

Here is a hypothesis: the Catholic loss of faith is the natural consequence of Catholics embracing the immorality of the society in which they live. It is simply not possible for Catholics who have already rejected Jesus with their thought and behavior to simultaneously accept Him in the sacraments. Of all the things which make us distinctively Catholic, the sacramental life wherein Jesus enters directly into our lives in substantial ways from birth to death is paramount in the authentic practice of Catholicism. And this sacramental life has been decisively spurned by those who enjoy the prestige but not the practice of Catholicism.

The Psalms are often remarkable for how precisely they apply to current conditions, despite their antiquity. These verses from Psalm 105 provide a disquietingly apt description of the majority of today’s U. S. Catholics:

“And they were mingled among the heathens, and learned their works: and served their idols, and it became a stumbling block to them.”

Psalms 105:35-36 Douay-Rheims Version

The problem faced by the Church is not catechesis: rather, it is evangelization of Catholics themselves.

If Catholics are to be evangelized, then it is nothing more than simple common sense to begin the process of rebuilding their faith with examination of conscience and rejection of sin. Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski put it quite clearly when commenting on the Revival presentation:

“There will be no Eucharistic Revival unless we have a revival in the Sacrament of Penance.” [13]

There is a fundamental dynamic happening in the Church which does not appear to be accounted for in the Revival planning: when we are massively immersed in sin, we are blind to the truth – even truth as glorious as the reality of the Real Presence. Therefore, repentance – the rejection of sin and the subsequent removal of the blinders – should be among the first of the subjects on which this Revival is focused. We cannot be amazed by the Eucharist when we are still enamored of sin.

This lack of attention to the pervasive reality of sin among Catholics is a real weakness, an imbalance, in the Eucharistic Revival planning described to date. In the Catholic Church today, we seem to have an aversion to the confrontation of sin. It is as if the hard questions are being deliberately avoided – no one wants to bring up the problem of sin for fear of offending modern Catholics. And that is a grievous error: how can we expect Catholics to engage in repentance if their pastors are not even strong enough to call them to repentance? I realize the goals of the Revival were not developed in a vacuum – in fact, it seems the Revival strategy and approach reflect the thought of a broad spectrum of Catholic leadership in America. But then the problem becomes even more daunting – it is not just the bishops who are unable to face the need for the Sacrament of Penance – it is also the best and brightest among Catholic laity.

Pope Benedict touched on the importance of penance relative to the Eucharist in the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 2007:

“ . . . an authentic catechesis on the meaning of the Eucharist must include the call to pursue the path of penance (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). We know that the faithful are surrounded by a culture that tends to eliminate the sense of sin and to promote a superficial approach that overlooks the need to be in a state of grace in order to approach sacramental communion worthily. The loss of a consciousness of sin always entails a certain superficiality in the understanding of God’s love. Bringing out the elements within the rite of Mass that express consciousness of personal sin and, at the same time, of God’s mercy, can prove most helpful to the faithful.”[14]

In our present Catholic circumstances, the “consciousness of personal sin” is not only “most helpful” but also essential. The situation is dire. The abandonment of Christian morality and the associated sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist endanger the souls of countless Catholics. Father Hardon eloquently and concisely characterized the worldly affliction with which we Catholics have aligned ourselves:

“There must be a massive blindness of mind in the consciences of whole nations about God’s authority in the moral order.” [15]

It is not merciful to ignore this situation. This should be considered an emergency of the first order, yet there is not any sense of urgency with regard to repentance in the current Revival planning.

Another worrisome aspect of the Revival has to do with uncertainty as to the content, the details of the message, of this Revival. What exactly will be taught? In the available information about the Revival, we hear a lot about broad objectives and process, but not much specific information about content. Here are the five “strategic pillars” of the Revival:

“1. Foster encounters with Jesus through kerygmatic proclamation and experiences of Eucharistic devotion.

2. Contemplate and proclaim the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist through the truth of our teaching, Beauty of our worship, and Goodness of a life of service.

3. Empower grassroots creativity by partnering with movements, apostolates, educational institutions, and parishes.

4. Reach the smallest unit: parish small groups and families.

5. Embrace and learn from the various rich intercultural Eucharistic traditions.” [16]

These pillars tell us little about the message which will actually be delivered via the Revival. And some of these pillars invite a certain amount of anxiety: what do “grassroots creativity” and “diverse Eucharistic traditions” have to do with setting Catholics straight in their understanding of both the reality of and the requirements for reception of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Are we going to see new and different versions of the Pachamama experience tumbling out of these diverse traditions? This is not an unreasonable question to ask given the confusing and conflicting messages cascading out of Rome these days.

Similar concerns arise from some of the processes to be employed at the diocesan and parish levels. [17] Small group discussions and a national corps of hastily formed “Eucharistic preachers” do not lend themselves to the preservation of orthodoxy. And why does the first year of the Revival include the formation of priests? Do the leaders of the Revival think the years of seminary formation were insufficient when it comes to priestly understanding of the Eucharist? That is quite an interesting commentary in itself. Or perhaps “formation” is necessary to ensure priests speak only the approved message of the revival – whatever it might be. And then, even after they have received formation, our priests must accommodate the influx into their parishes of Eucharistic “missionaries” of questionable pedigree. It is almost as though some sort of parallel catechetical structure is being developed to replace parish-based religious education and priestly homilies.

There is one other aspect of the Revival planning which is surprisingly absent. Since the Mass is the central act of Catholic worship, then it would be reasonable to assess whether the Eucharist is receiving the proper, best, right reverence within the Mass. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, referring to the weakness of the Sunday celebration of the Liturgy in the U. S., said the Revival must emphasize superb, fitting celebration of the Liturgy, including the Liturgy of the Word. [18]

Taylor Marshall recently offered an insightful comment regarding the role of the Mass relative to the Eucharist. [19] He likened the Eucharist to a precious gem, a diamond, whose true value can be best recognized and fully appreciated when placed in a setting which brings out its full beauty. Does the Novus Ordo Mass, as it is experienced by Catholics today, fully express the reverence and solemnity due to the profound reality of Jesus’ sacrifice at the Consecration? Peter Kwasniewski thinks not:

“The classical Roman rite as it developed over so many centuries acquired numerous and very expressive gestures of adoration and care toward the Holy Sacrament, precisely because it is not a mere “thing,” but under the signs of bread and wine a divine Person is really present. How we treat Him is how we show our faith in Him and our love for Him. The liturgical reform cruelly diminished these gestures and introduced other practices, now habitual to the point of being immovable, that suggest we are dealing with common food and drink that, in the context of Mass, are given a new symbolic meaning (the technical term for this heresy is “transsignification”). The reformed rite is redolent of a Lutheran or Calvinist conception of the Eucharist. That is the “faith,” if one can call it that, of the vast majority of Catholics in the Western world.” [20]

The Revival should include a careful examination of our treatment of the Eucharist at Holy Mass. There is no point in teaching about adoration of the Eucharist outside of Mass if our worship of the Eucharist within the Mass is deficient.

Perhaps these issues will be satisfactorily answered in due time as we learn more about the Revival and its teaching materials, and the USCCB teaching document on the Eucharist is published. [21] I remain wary of a program, a very large program, which will take a lot of time, cost a lot of money, lack direction and focus, make a lot of people tired, and will do nothing to correct the true causes for the loss of faith we now see in the Church. In its methods and processes, and in its focus on symptoms rather than causes, it bears a striking resemblance to the progressive programs we currently see from the U. S. government. And that is not a good thing.

References.

1. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:09:30. https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=578

2. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:10:18.
   https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=618

3. Smith, Gregory. “One-third of U.S. Catholics believe in transubstantiation.” Pew Research Center. August 5, 2019.
   https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/

4. “Thematic Framework of the 2021-2024 USCCB Strategic Plan.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Page 7.
   https://www.usccb.org/resources/2021-24%20Strategic%20Plan%20Thematic%20Framework%20(004).pdf

5. Saad, Lydia. “Catholics’ Church Attendance Resumes Downward Slide.” Gallup. April 9, 2018.
   https://news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx

6. “Frequently Requested Church Statistics.” Center for Applied Research In The Apostolate. Accessed October 8, 2021.
   https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/
7. Gray, Mark. “The End of 2020.” Nineteen Sixty-four. December 30, 2020. https://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-end-of-2020.html

8. Gray, Mark and Perl, Paul. “Sacraments Today: Belief and Practice among U. S. Catholics.” Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. p. 57. April 2008.
   https://cara.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sacraments/sacramentsreport.pdf

9. Masci, David and Smith, Gregory A. “7 Facts About American Catholics.” Pew Research Center. October 10, 2018.
   https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/

10. Fahmy, Dalia. “8 Key Findings about Catholics and Abortion.” Pew Research Center. October 20, 2020.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/
11. Diamant, Jeff. “How Catholics around the world see same-sex marriage, homosexuality.” Pew Research Center. November 2, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/

12. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:29:05.
    https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=1744

13. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:48:05.
    https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=2885
14. “Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis Of the Holy Father Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Clergy, Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful, On the Eucharist As the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission.” The Holy See. No. 20, page 15. February 22, 2007.
    https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

15. Hardon, John. “Understand your Catholic Faith or Lose It.” Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association: Archives. Accessed October 11, 2021.
    http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Faith/Faith_015.htm
16. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:12:18. https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=738

17. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:16:26.
    https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=986

18. Cozzens, Andrew. “My Flesh For The Life Of The World.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Assembly, Virtual Plenary Session Day 3. June 18, 2021. 00:37:22.
    https://youtu.be/3AOgMTxoeV8?t=2242

19. “Mass of the Ages.” Directed by Cameron O’Hearn. 00:34:35
    https://theliturgy.org/watch

20. Kwasniewski, Peter. “Liturgy expert: Worldwide spread of Novus Ordo has diminished belief in Real Presence.” Lifesite News. October 20, 2020.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liturgy-expert-worldwide-spread-of-novus-ordo-has-diminished-belief-in-real-presence/

21. “USCCB President: Eucharistic Document Seeks to Deepen ‘Awareness,’ ‘Amazement.’” Catholic News Agency. June 21, 2021.
    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248085/usccb-president-eucharistic-document-seeks-to-deepen-awareness-amazement

When I walk into that quiet church on Sunday afternoon before Holy Mass, it is as if I have entered a different world. There are already several people kneeling silently in prayer, and from one corner of the church I can hear the muted murmur of others at confession. As I kneel and face the Tabernacle, the cares and concerns that were racing around inside my head begin to slow and drop away, and instead I begin to feel that hunger in my soul that only He can satisfy. I am so very glad to be here, a soul desperately in need of His grace, in a place where I know that I can find Him. “I will go in unto the altar of God . . .” As the ancient rite begins, those solemn prayers somehow draw me deeply into a sublime experience of the worship of God Himself, as they have for countless Christians before me.

I do not want to face the imminent loss of this most precious privilege, this treasure, of Catholic life. There is no doubt that the intent of Traditionis Custodes is to bring about the complete and total demise of the Mass that for 15 centuries was the principle form of worship of all Roman Catholics. [1] It is nothing less than a terrible tragedy. The question that begs to be answered is “Why?”

The Holy Father, citing a survey of the bishops, tells us that those who participate in the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) are causing disunity in the Church, and are undermining the teaching of Vatican II. [2, 3] But TLM attendees around the globe constitute only only a tiny fraction of Pope Francis’ flock – how could such a small number of souls have any substantial impact on the Church at large? Even if they have somehow covertly multiplied, the great majority of these people are not customarily disgruntled folks: on the contrary, they are humbly grateful and joyful to be able to worship within the solemn beauty and reverence of the Mass of the Ages. The last thing they would do would be anything to disrupt that joy. They have no reason to engage in conflict with their fellow parishioners who attend the Novus Ordo.

Yet we must accept that Pope Francis perceives in the TLM and its adherents a real, substantial threat to the Church. Perhaps the bishops responded to the survey with new data, not previously recognized in the aggregate, indicating rapid TLM growth. It is hard to find research in this area, although there are some indicators of growth, such as the compilation of TLM sites at the Latin Mass Directory[4] and the recent survey by Crisis Magazine. [5] Pew Research [6, 7, 8, 9], Gallup [10] and CARA [11] can tell you about the unfortunate declines in foundational beliefs, practice, and membership within the U. S. Church, but this information is not sorted by TLM and Novus Ordo categories. Since neither the motu proprio itself, nor the accompanying letter, provide evidence which would help us understand the specifics of the threat, the question remains: exactly what is it that this small group of Catholics is doing that is so dangerous to the Faith? How are they manifesting their disunity, and how are they expressing their lack of fidelity to the teachings of Vatican II?

One way to gain some insight into Traditionis Custodes is to examine it in light of Pope Francis’ consistent prior teaching. A key aspect of that teaching which immediately comes to mind with respect to the TLM is the emphasis on the concept of “rigidity:”

“According to one of his closest advisers, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, for Francis both the Church and the world are in constant flux, and so his pontificate is one of ‘discernment, of incomplete thought’ for which the rigidity of rules is an obstacle. The Holy Father, he added, doesn’t want to teach “a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world.” For him, Father Spadaro said, “neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems.” [emphasis added] [12]

It is important to note that the term “rigid,” as customarily used by Pope Francis, is not consistent with the normal usage of the word. In normal usage, identification of someone as rigid carries a negative connotation, implying that such a person is too rigid. The normal usage means unreasonably strict adherence to some belief or practice. In the context of morality, for example, rigidity could describe a person who has such a grim focus on sin that he engages in unhealthy scrupulosity, and is therefore unable to discern God’s will accurately.

Pope Francis, however, sees rigidity as any consistent and unchanging adherence to “rules,” regardless of the validity or reasonableness of those rules. Therefore, all rules which are inflexible and which do not admit of exceptions, are by definition rigid, and carry that negative characterization. This thought process is clearly illustrated in a homily from June 2016:

“Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.” [13]

“ . . . He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity.” With this mode of thought, then, it is not much of a stretch to view the Commandments as mere ideals, which are no longer standards of Christian morality which must be followed. This concern with rigidity extends to religious practice as well. In the Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate, for example, Pope Francis voices his dismay with “a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy,” some groups of Christians giving “excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting,” and complicating the Gospel by becoming “enslaved to a blueprint that leaves few openings for the working of grace.” [14]

Viewed from this perspective, the Traditional Latin Mass is the quintessential example of rigid religious practice. The TLM has indeed been unchanging – although incremental modifications have been made over the centuries, it has remained essentially the same since the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great. [15] The people who prefer that unchanging TLM tend to be willing to accept unchanging standards of morality even though they may find them difficult, and even though they might find it necessary to make frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance when they fail. If the bishops’ responses to the survey did in fact suggest strong growth and increasing influence of the TLM, then that TLM and its adherents represent a bastion of rigidity among the faithful, which by its very nature is opposed to the direction in which Pope Francis is trying to take the Church. A threat such as this, therefore, must be dealt with firmly and decisively – and that is exactly what Pope Francis has done with Traditionis Custodes.

However, in the near term the fate of the TLM will depend on the bishops, who may have sufficient latitude to allow it to survive. Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco thinks so, [16] and there are Canon Law authorities who believe that bishops can permit dispensations from the requirements of this motu proprio. [17] There has already been a wide spectrum of responses from various bishops, ranging from complete termination of the TLM in some dioceses to various limitations and even full approval to continue as before in others.

It might help the bishops as they consider their decisions to take a look back at what the Council actually required for the reform of the Mass. Laity who are not familiar with Sacrosanctum Concilium [18] may be surprised. While Pope Francis has emphatically declared the Novus Ordo to be the intended product of the reform of the liturgy directed by Vatican II, the specific liturgical mandates of the Council were relatively minimal, and, as pointed out by Father Fessio more than twenty years ago, bear little resemblance to many of the innovations we now experience in the Novus Ordo. [19] Here is a brief summary of the nine specific mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

• More readings from the Bible.
• Better homilies.
• Restoration of the Prayers of the Faithful.
• A suitable place allotted to the mother tongue.
• Hosts consecrated at the same Mass.
• Communion under both species – in limited circumstances.
• Attendance for the entire Mass by the congregation.
• Concelebration permitted on a limited basis.
• The congregation to sing or say together the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin.

Here are innovations characteristic of the Novus Ordo which are not directly mandated in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

• The removal of the many beautiful and inspiring prayers and parts of the Mass which are present in my 1962 Missal but have disappeared from the Novus Ordo.
• The addition of the three new “Eucharistic Prayers.”
• The priest facing the congregation.
• Reception of Holy Communion in the hand and the removal of the Communion rail.
• The banishment of the Tabernacle from the center of the altar.
• The general lack of reverence often displayed in the Novus Ordo environment, expressed most clearly by dress only slightly more formal than beachwear.
• Music “ministers” performing at the front of the Church.
• The inferior music routinely presented by said music ministers.
• Lectors.
• Altar girls.
• Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
• The kiss of peace in the congregation.
• Other miscellaneous practices which have crept in, like the holding of hands during the Our Father, or the congregation’s use of the orans posture for prayer.

Sacrosanctum Concilium did call for simplification of the Mass, and also sought as a priority “active participation” by the congregation. But that simplification was limited to removal of redundancy or “additions of little advantage.” Moreover, the reform was to be exercised with caution:

“Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” [emphasis added] [18]

It is difficult indeed to make the case that the Novus Ordo innovations listed above grow organically from anything in the TLM. The wholesale changes evident in the Novus Ordo certainly exceed the measured approach to reform described in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was not necessary to make sweeping changes to the structure and prayers of the Mass in order to meet the intent of the reform. For example, active participation can be accomplished in a variety of ways, even without any changes to the Mass at all. Pope St. Pius X eloquently described how the faithful should pray the Mass, in this beautiful instruction which appears in the 1962 Roman Missal:

“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart, and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.” [20]

Does this not reflect active participation at its best?

The fascinating thing here is that the TLM without any changes is actually much more closely related to the intent of the Council Fathers as reflected in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium than is the Novus Ordo with all of its changes. A look at a side by side comparison of the Novus Ordo to the TLM is astonishing in the contrast it presents. [21] It is as if the original, full strength, adult edition of the Mass was vigorously pruned to make it as simple as possible. The Novus Ordo is what remained after the Traditional Rite had been stripped down and reduced to its bare bones.

On the other hand, the Missa Cantata which I am fortunate to attend every Sunday due to the fervor of two holy parish priests, employs Gregorian Chant as a routine and integral component of Holy Mass. Gregorian chant, by the way, was not only the preferred musical form but also the primary means of active participation envisioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium. With respect to “a suitable place for the mother tongue,” I am able to pray every single word of every single prayer in that Mass in my native language, since the Missal incorporates English and Latin on facing pages. I am also able to join Father in his recitation of the Ordinary prayers in Latin as well, if that were to be required. Active participation in both the vernacular and Latin is therefore readily accommodated in the TLM. Regarding attendance for the entire Mass – I simply advise that if you wish to select a preferred seat, you should arrive early, because most people arrive well before Mass starts. And if you desire to leave the church immediately after Mass without hindrance, then you should position yourself at the end of a pew, since those TLM devotees almost universally kneel immediately after Mass is over and continue their contemplation, no doubt because they are profoundly conscious of the enormous significance of the Holy Eucharist they have just received, and wish to fully embrace that Real Presence before they head back out into the world. The Traditional Latin Mass as it is practiced today, before any changes to the structure, prayers, or form of the Mass have been made, is already compliant with most of the mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The bishops, while conducting their deliberations, should rest assured that Catholics who love the Traditional Latin Mass have no interest in fostering disunity with their Novus Ordo brethren. And in their devotion to the traditional form of Holy Mass they are endorsing, rather than rejecting, the teachings of Vatican Council II – and guarding the Tradition.

References.

1. Bermudez, Alejandro. “Cardinal Burke questions Pope Francis’ authority to eliminate the Traditional Latin Mass.” Catholic News Agency. July 22, 2021. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248472/cardinal-burke-questions-pope-francis-authority-to-eliminate-the-traditional-latin-mass

2. Francis. “Traditionis Custodes. APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO” BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.” The Vatican. July 16, 2021. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.htmlFrancis.

3. “Letter of the Holy Father Francis to all bishops worldwide to present the Motu proprio “Traditionis custodes” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the Reform of 1970.” The Vatican. July 16, 2021
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/210716c.html

4. “Find Traditional Latin Masses Around the World.” Latin Mass Directory. Accessed August 6, 2021. https://www.latinmassdir.org/

5. “The Growth of the Latin Mass: A Survey.” Crisis Magazine. July 26, 2021
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-growth-of-the-latin-mass-a-survey

6. Masci, David and Smith, Gregory A. “7 Facts About American Catholics.” Pew Research Center. October 10, 2018.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/esearch Center. October 10, 2018.

7. Fahmy, Dalia. “8 Key Findings about Catholics and Abortion.” Pew Research Center. October 20, 2020.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/

8. Diamant, Jeff. “How Catholics around the world see same-sex marriage, homosexuality.” Pew Research Center. November 2, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/

9. Smith, Gregory A. “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ.” Pew Research Center. August 5, 2019.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/

10. Saad, Lydia. “Catholics’ Church Attendance Resumes Downward Slide.” Gallup. April 9, 2018.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx

11. “Frequently Requested Church Statistics.” Center for Applied Research In The Apostolate. Accessed August 5, 2021.
https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

12. Pentin, Edward. “Pope Francis: Rigid People Are Sick.” National Catholic Register. October 24, 2016. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-francis-rigid-people-are-sick

13. Westen, John-Henry. “Pope Francis: ‘Rigid… this or nothing’ Catholics are ‘heretical’ and ‘not Catholic.’” Lifesite News. June 9, 2016. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-rigid-this-or-nothing-catholics-are-heretical-and-not-catholic/

14. Francis. “Gaudete et Exsultate. Apostolic Exhortation on the Call to Holiness in Today’s World.” The Vatican. 19 March 2018. Sections 57, 58, 59. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_gaudete-et-exsultate.html

15. Williams, Brian. “Busting the Myth of the Tridentine Mass.” Liturgy Guy. July 23, 2021. https://liturgyguy.com/2017/07/23/busting-the-myth-of-the-tridentine-mass/

16. Rousselle, Christine. “Archbishop Cordileone: Traditional Latin Mass Will Continue in San Francisco.” Catholic News Agency. July 16, 2021.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248400/archbishop-cordileone-traditional-latin-mass-will-continue-in-san-francisco

17. Boniface. “Cardinal Cicognani on Canonical Dissimulation.” Unam Sanctam Catholicam. August 2, 2021.
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2021/08/cardinal-cicognani-on-canonical.html

18. Paul VI. “CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.” The Vatican. December 4, 1963. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

19. Fessio, Joseph. “The Mass of Vatican II.” Catholic World Report. July 23,2021. Editor’s note: This essay appeared originally in the September/October 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier and is based on a lecture on the liturgy given by Father Fessio in May, 1999.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/07/23/the-mass-of-vatican-ii/

20. The Roman Catholic Daily Missal, 1962. Angelus Press. 2004, 835.

21. “New and Traditional Side by Side – A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXTS OF THE TRADITIONAL MISSAL AND THE NEW MISSAL OF 2011.” Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Accessed August 8, 2021.
https://lms.org.uk/missals

In the Year of our Lord 2021, in the 8^th year of the pontificate of Francis, many centuries after the reign of the last Roman Emperor, and half a millenium after the Council of Trent, in the far western reaches of the One Holy Roman Catholic Church, in a region known as the New World, and during the chaos which had consumed that Church for more than half a century since the close of the Second Vatican Council, a new controversy erupted among the bishops of that region.

It seems that the Caesar of that region of the New World stridently declared himself a Catholic of the greatest devotion, more than worthy of the title “devout.” However, certain bishops, who were apparently not aware of the pastoral presumption toward inoffensiveness holding sway in the Church in those days, decided that Caesar’s political positions and decisions were not in accord with the teachings of the Church: in fact, these bishops thought that Caesar typically acted in direct contravention of the requirements of faith and morals held to be compulsory by the Church. These bishops were particularly concerned with the Catholic Caesar’s adamant support of the malodorous practice of the taking of innocent life in the womb, a behavior tragically prevalent in that era, and they therefore sought to deny Caesar the reception of Holy Communion. One such bishop proclaimed:

“Persons who do not believe in the Real Presence, who ignore or do not accept Church teaching, or who are otherwise objectively in a state of serious sin, should not present themselves for Communion. It’s that simple and that serious. If they do, they not only put their own souls in grave jeopardy, but—just as grievously—they also violate the rights of Catholics who do seek to live their faith authentically. This Eucharistic discipline, the coherence of Catholic belief and the behavior it requires, is rooted both in Scripture and constant Church practice. It applies to all Catholics, not merely public officials, and it applies all the time and everywhere.” [1]

Other bishops, those who possessed greater social awareness and pastoral delicacy, and were wise in the ways of progressivism, demurred in making such a harsh judgment, and instead argued that the Church cannot be seen to be lacking in diversity, inclusiveness, and willingness to engage in dialogue. The One Holy Roman Catholic Church must be a welcoming Church, they said, accepting of many viewpoints, merciful, always willing to exercise restraint, and eager to accompany all, even those who find it difficult to accept wholeheartedly the authority of the Church. To bar the Catholic Caesar from Holy Communion would be to politicize and degrade the Eucharist:

It must be rough to be a Roman Catholic bishop in America these days. Seriously, half the flock is in open rebellion. Then there’s that other problem that won’t go away, having to do with clerical abuse, which has caused so much damage to the lives and souls of Catholics. And now the bishops have to deal with the Equality Act, a concerted attack upon Christianity by the U. S. government, which is paradoxically and painfully led by a Catholic President and a Catholic Speaker of the House. In my humble opinion, a calamity like this deserves a hard-nosed response, but it is difficult to envision the bishops as an aggressively outspoken group. They typically approach conflict as nice avuncular gentlemen, who would prefer to dialogue rather than forcefully preach. Such a genial strategy is not seen by all as effective – in fact, one priest recently characterized the ministry of the Catholic bishops over the last several decades as one of “bad catechesis and cowardice.” [1] While “cowardice” might be a somewhat harsh characterization of the bishops’ performance, it is fair to say that their recent statement to Congress opposing the Equality Act was certainly not as vigorous as it could have been.

The Equality Act, [2] pending now in Congress, has far-reaching and disastrous implications not only for religious and faith-based organizations, but also for the foundations of our society itself. The scope of the Act was characterized well by Mary Beth Waddell of the Family Research Council:

“The Equality Act is legislation that would massively overhaul our federal civil rights framework in order to mandate special privileges for sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), expand abortion access, and gut religious liberty—leaving many to suffer the consequences, including women, children, medical professionals, parents, teachers, students, families (including small business owners), the unborn, churches, religious organizations and schools, people of faith, and even those members of the LGBT community it claims to protect.” [3]

But the broad reach of the Act is not its most dangerous aspect: it is a threat not just to persons and religious organizations, but more importantly, to Christianity itself. Catholic League President Bill Donahue understands this:

“ . . . its effect is to promote the most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law.” [4]

This is because the Act is really an attempt to force everyone to accept a disordered vision of human sexuality. As described by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council,

“This is a radical bill that uses the government to control, through coercion, how every American thinks, speaks, and acts on human sexuality.” [5]

While the progressive attack on the Christian faith is nothing new – the Supreme Court in particular has been instrumental for decades now in removing the Christian understanding of human sexuality from U. S. law with decisions such as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Obergefell – never before in the U. S. has the destruction of God’s design been so systematically codified into law. This law affects marriage. It affects the family. It affects children. And as Amy Welborn writes, it is particularly dangerous for women:

“Many aspects of life call for sexually integrated spaces — but not all. Women deserve their own spaces when they are escaping from abuse, when they are imprisoned, when they are under medical care, when they are tending to personal physical needs, and if they desire, when they are educated, just to name a few. Women deserve to be safe in those spaces, and the Equality Act, as written, would open up those spaces to the presence of men – the worst men, who for whatever reason, cannot or will not leave vulnerable women alone, or who are sexually aroused by pretending to be women in women’s spaces.” [6]

This Act exploits the human misery experienced by those afflicted with homosexual or gender confusion, using the force of law to foster the propagation of their illness throughout all of our society. This is clearly not legislative business as usual. We stand two Democrat senators away from losing the filibuster, and therefore failing to defeat this Act. This dire circumstance requires an emphatic and courageous counter-attack.

Yet on February 23^rd, 2021, five bishops representing the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could muster nothing more than what amounts to a rather mild reproach to U. S. Congress, with a bottom line stating “We oppose this legislation.” Although the letter did note that “the bill represents the imposition by Congress of novel and divisive viewpoints regarding “gender” on individuals and organizations,” and did instruct the Congress that gender differences are real and not merely “social constructs,” it avoided drawing the obvious conclusion that both Christianity and the stability of society are at significant risk. [7]

Instead, the bishops chose to focus on a number of ways in which the Act will discriminate against Christians and and their organizations. But even here the bishops understated the case. For example, several of the social harms listed in their letter predict that people will be forced to act against their religious beliefs. But if “faithful” people act against the tenets of their faith, that is not a problem with the Equality Act – it is actually a problem with the inherent weakness of the Church and her faithful. The bishops should have argued that faithful Christians and their organizations will not comply with such an unjust and unconstitutional law, and will therefore be stripped of the functions they have been performing in society. The consequence, assessed with that perspective, is then seen to be much more than mere discrimination: the real damage is that Christianity itself will be expelled from society – Christianity as it influences and is exercised in all societal arenas – including charities, schools, businesses, health care, and churches.

The bishops failed to mention the potential devastation to schools, except for the loss of exclusively female sports competitions and facilities. It is bad enough that there exists a very real potential loss of Christian schools which refuse the implementation of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity curriculum. Beyond that, however, the Equality Act will ensure the indoctrination of public school children in this evil ideology. Concerned parents should read the Heritage Foundation’s detailed analysis, which provides the following key point, among others, about the Sexual Ideology Indoctrination that is coming with the Equality Act:

“Under the Equality Act, schools would, in effect, be forced to propagate the view that traditional beliefs regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender are bigoted and discriminatory—regardless of objections from parents.” [8]

Schools are just one sector of society in which this law will operate. When it comes to fundamentals, let’s consider the family, another institution not mentioned in the statement by the bishops. Think about how the diseased view of human sexuality mandated by this Act would affect the family, in light of the following description of the family and its role in society from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2207:

“The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.” [9]

The mandates of the Equality Act are directly at odds with this vision, God’s vision, of the family. And given its expansive scope, no one yet completely grasps the extent to which the tentacles of this nasty law will mutilate the American community.

With this Act the Democrat Party is setting in place the infrastructure for persecution of the Christian Church. If anyone can lead the fight against this assault, it is the bishops – because, after all, they are the successors of the Apostles. As prescribed in the 2004 Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops:

“Foremost among the different ministries of the Bishop is that of proclaiming the Word of God, as did the Apostles (cf. Rom 1:1) (351), announcing it with courage (cf. Rom 1:16) and defending the Christian people against errors that threaten them (cf. Acts 20:29; Phil 1:16). The Bishop, in communion with the Head and members of the College, is an authoritative teacher, invested with Christ’s own authority, both when he teaches individually and when he teaches in union with the other Bishops.” [10]

It would no doubt be a novel and salutary experience for the “whited sepulchres” in Congress to encounter Apostles who speak with authority, as Jesus did in the following instance with the Pharisees and Sadducees:

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

– Mt 23:27-28 Douay-Rheims Version

An authoritative exhortation to Congress in defiance of this ominously pagan monstrosity masquerading as law requires a response far stronger than the meek objection that “We oppose this legislation.” The bishops should persist in the fight against this sinister Act, and challenge the Congress in no uncertain terms:

– “We will not comply with this unjust and immoral law.”

– “We will fight this legislation with every means at our disposal.”

– “We will urge our faithful to do the same.”

References.

1. LaChance, Mike. “Catholic Priest Goes Off On Joe Biden In Viral Rant (VIDEO).” Gateway Pundit. March 21, 2021. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/catholic-priest-goes-off-joe-biden-viral-rant-video/

2. U.S. Congress. House. EQUALITY ACT. HR 5. 117th Cong., 1st sess. Introduced in House February 18, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5/text

3. Waddell, Mary Beth. “How the ‘Equality Act’ Is Actually Unequal, Unfair, and Unjust.” Family Research Council. February 2021. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19D32.pdf

4. Donahue, Bill. “Equality Act is Anti-Christian.” CNS News. February 22, 2021. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/equality-act-anti-christian

5. “FRC urges US House of Representatives to reject the far-Left Equality Act.” Family Research Council. February 24, 2021. https://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-action-urges-us-house-of-representatives-to-reject-the-far-left-equality-act

6. Welborn, Amy. “The foundational (but largely ignored) problem with the Equality Act.” Catholic World Report. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/23/the-foundational-but-largely-ignored-problem-with-the-equality-act/

7. “Letter to Congress on Equality Act.” USCCB:Resources. February 23, 2021. https://www.usccb.org/resources/letter-congress-equality-act-february-23-2021/

8. Jones, Andrea and Kao, Emilie. “Sexual Ideology Indoctrination: The Equality Act’s Impact on School Curriculum and Parental Rights.” The Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder. May 15, 2019. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/sexual-ideology-indoctrination-the-equality-acts-impact-school-curriculum-and

9. United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994, paragraph 2207. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

10. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, “APOSTOLORUM SUCCESSORES.” Congregation for Bishops, No. 119. Vatican Website, 2004. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_en.html