And why speak I of the world to come? Since here this mystery makes earth become to you a heaven. Open only for once the gates of heaven and look in; nay, rather not of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens; and then you will behold what I have been speaking of. For what is there most precious of all, this will I show you lying upon the earth. For as in royal palaces, what is most glorious of all is not walls, nor golden roofs, but the person of the king sitting on the throne; so likewise in heaven the Body of the King. But this, you are now permitted to see upon earth. For it is not angels, nor archangels, nor heavens and heavens of heavens, that I show you, but the very Lord and Owner of these.
– St. John Chrysostom, Homily on 1st Cor., as cited in Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, p. 34
On February 14, 2015, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan, was sponsored by the Paulus Institute to give a talk in Washington, DC. During the talk, he proposed concrete actions — ten essential elements — which should be implemented to accomplish liturgical renewal.
As an attendee, I was impressed once again by his excellency’s concern for reverence and piety in Catholic worship. Because of the deep value of the insights he presented, I would like to offer to you my own summary of his principle themes.
The bishop instructed that ever since apostolic times, the Church sought to have holy liturgy, and that it is only through the action of the Holy Spirit that one can truly adore Christ. Exterior gestures of adoration that express interior reverence are vital within the context of the liturgy. These include bowing, genuflections, prostrations, and the like. His excellency cited St. John Chrysostom’s writings on liturgy, particularly focusing on the following theme: The liturgy of the Church is a participation in and must be modeled upon the heavenly liturgy of the angels.
The notion of heavenly liturgy, and our participation in it at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, offers some perspective to those of us who may be tempted to take for granted the incredible miracle in our midst. The reality is that each Catholic church is, itself, a place wherein dwell angels, archangels, the kingdom of God, and God’s own Heavenly Self. If we were somehow able to be transported to the heavenly liturgy, we would not dare speak even to those we know and love. When we are within a Church, we should therefore speak reservedly, and then only of sacred things.
In the early church, the altar and other sacred items were veiled out of respect for the sacred mystery in which they played a role. There was not, contrary to popular belief in our present time, a versus populum celebration of Mass or even a widespread practice of communion in the hand. The priest and the people faced together towards God in the liturgical East.
When we celebrate liturgy, it is God who must be at the center. The incarnate God. Christ. Nobody else. Not even the priest who acts in His place.
It impoverishes the liturgy when we reduce the signs and gestures of adoration. Any liturgical renewal must therefore restore these and bring about a more Christocentric and transcendent character of the earthly liturgy which is more reminiscent of the angelic liturgy.
Ten Elements of Renewal
Bishop Schneider offered these 10 points of implementation which he views as fundamental for liturgical renewal (audio begins at 27 minutes):
1. The tabernacle, where Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, is really present under the species of bread should be placed in the center of the sanctuary, because in no other sign on this earth is God, the Emmanuel, so really present and so near to man as in the tabernacle. The tabernacle is the sign indicating and containing the Real Presence of Christ and should therefore be closer to the altar and constitute with the altar the one central sign indicating the Eucharistic mystery. The Sacrament of the Tabernacle and the Sacrifice of the Altar should therefore not be opposed or separated, but both in the central place and close together in the sanctuary. All the attention of those who enter a church should spontaneously be directed towards the tabernacle and the altar.
2. During the Eucharistic liturgy – at the very least during the Eucharistic prayer – when Christ the Lamb of God is immolated, the face of the priest should not be seen by the faithful. Even the Seraphim cover their faces (Isaiah 6:2) when adoring God. Instead, the face of the priest should be turned toward the cross, the icon of the crucified God.
3. During the liturgy, there should be more signs of adoration — specifically genuflections — especially each time the priest touches the consecrated host.
4. The faithful approaching to receive the Lamb of God in Holy Communion should greet and receive Him with an act of adoration, kneeling. Which moment in the life of the faithful is more sacred than this moment of encounter with the Lord?
5. There should be more room for silence during the liturgy, especially during those moments which most fully express the mystery of the redemption. Especially when the sacrifice of the cross is made present during the Eucharistic prayer.
6. There should be more exterior signs which express the dependence of the priest on Christ, the High Priest, which would more clearly show that the words the priest speaks (ie., “Dominus Vobiscum“) and the blessings he offers to the faithful depend on and flow out from Christ the High Priest, not from him, the private person. Not “I greet you” or “I bless you” but “I the Lord” do these things. Christ. Such signs could be (as was practiced for centuries) the kissing of the altar before greeting the people to indicate that this love flows not from the priest but from the altar; and also before blessing, to kiss the altar, and then bless the people. (This was practiced for millennium, and unfortunately in the new rite has been abolished.) Also, bowing towards the altar cross to indicate that Christ is more important than the priest. Often in the liturgy — in the old rite — when a priest expressed the name of Jesus, he had to turn to the cross and make a bow to show that the attention should be on Christ, not him.
7. There should be more signs which express the unfathomable mystery of the redemption. This could be achieved through the veiling of liturgical objects, because veiling is an act of the liturgy of the angels. Veiling the chalice, veiling the paten with the humeral veil, the veiling of the corporal, veiling the hands of the bishop when he celebrates a solemnity, The use of communion rails, also, to veil the altar. Also signs – signs of the cross by the priest and the faithful. Making signs of the cross during the priest by the Eucharistic prayer and by the faithful during other moments of the liturgy; when we are signing ourselves with the cross it is a sign of blessing. In the ancient liturgy, three times during the Gloria, the Credo, and the Sanctus, the faithful made the sign of the cross. These are expressions of the mystery.
8. There should be a constant sign which expresses the mystery also by means of human language – that is to say, Latin is a sacred language demanded by the Second Vatican Council in celebration of every holy Mass and in each place a part of the Eucharistic prayer should always be said in Latin.
9. All those who exercise an active role in the liturgy, such as lectors, or those announcing the prayer of the faithful, should always be dressed in the liturgical vestments; and only men, no women, because this is an exercise in the sanctuary, close to the priesthood. Even reading the lectionary is directed towards this liturgy which we are celebrating to Christ. And therefore only men dressed in liturgical vestments should be in the sanctuary.
10. The music and the songs during the liturgy should more truly reflect the sacred character and should resemble the song of the angels, like the Sanctus, in order to be really more able to sing with one voice with the angels. Not only the sanctus, but the entire Holy Mass. It would be necessary that the heart, mind and voice of the priest and the faithful be directed towards The Lord. And that this would be manifested by exterior signs and gestures as well.
There is a great deal to reflect on here. Each of these ten points seems, to me at least, indispensable in our pursuit of truly reverent worship in our churches. None of these points is incompatible with either the Church’s ancient liturgy or, perhaps more importantly, with the liturgy envisioned by the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
It would be a tremendous blessing if more bishops would take up these ten points as essential guidelines for liturgy in their dioceses. I encourage you to send them along to your own bishop for his consideration. There were more treasures in the Q&A, which I have elected not to transcribe due to the length. (If you are interested in the full audio of the talk, see below.)
I also had the opportunity to meet briefly with the bishop at the conclusion of his talk. When I thanked him for his leadership in a time where it seems so many of our shepherds are not speaking with clear voices for the teachings of the Church, he said to me, “It is you who must do this. You, the faithful, your families. You must be holy. You must teach the faith to your children. You must inspire the priests.” On the subject of vocations, he said that we must offer our children to God if we wish for them to receive a call. It would seem that with this advice — paired with the concrete suggestions he previously offered in his article published earlier this year — he is calling on us, the laity, to begin a holiness revolution if we wish to see reform the Church.
It seems we had better get started.
UPDATE: We originally included a personal voice recording of the talk, but the Paul King of the Paulus Institute (the organizers of the talk) has kindly brought to my attention that a video of the bishop’s lecture is now available, so we have replaced the audio recording with it:
There is also an interview with Bishop Schneider taken on the same occasion:
Originally published on March 16, 2015
On the importance of “signs” in Japan:
“Japanese Tea Ceremony, the classic ritualised ceremony of the Far East,
was influenced by the Traditional Mass, which one of the great Masters
of the ceremony witnessed, and found profoundly impressive.”
— Joseph Shaw, The EF and Japanese culture
Also: Rev Daniel Horgan, The Traditional Mass and Asian Peoples
Wow! Thank you for that excellent article. I have been living in Asia for a while now and this article captured many similar thoughts I have had when trying to understand the relationship between the TLM and Asian culture.
And the “tempura” Japanese recipe originates it’s name from the latin word “tempora”. It was eaten during Lent (tempora) by the Japanese catholics.
Thank you so much!!! I always wondered why the name Tempura. Now I know Thanks!!!!
(Cross-posted from Facebook) One of the things I’ve never understood about recent Catholic history is how the transition to the New Mass and the irreverent things that went with it (referenced by Bishop Schneider) happened so quickly and with seemingly so little opposition. I don’t think it would be like that going in the other direction. In other words, if somehow Pope Pius XIII decreed that we were going back to the Old Mass or enforced Schneider’s recommendations, or whatever, I think you would see riots. It’s true that the Old Mass or the New Mass in Latin + Reverence is gaining while the “mainstream” parishes are shrinking. But it’s difficult for me to see the precise path that will lead us out of this.
Did you live through the 1960s? The West was going through a cultural change that started from—opinions differ on how far to go back. People were sick of the old ways—the old failed ways. People really did say “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” “Avant-garde” meant something positive. It was, as Guardini wrote, “The End of the Modern World.” (1956). All this was already old news. Even the Church believed it. The clue to understanding this is that there was great impatience, not love; it was the idea that if we “got rid of” what was holding us back, better things would automatically happen. Original Sin was dismissed. Nobody wanted to look at reality. As Jacques Barzun wrote,
As to the Old Mass returning, it will be fast or slow. It would have been much faster if John Paul II and Benedict XVI had actually celebrated the Old Mass. It will be a revolution (counter-revolution? conversion? miracle?) if the Pope of Surprises does. It remains true that God writes straight with crooked lines.
You are correct, as the return of tradition will go quicker if a Pope would celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.
“…happened so quickly and with seemingly so little opposition.”
In no small part: It was good old fashioned Catholic obedience. “The Pope wants this. So we will receive it.” And we had had a pretty darned good run of popes for quite a stretch there.
This is true, but the clergy embraced the changes and were ahead of the laity. To some of the laity it seemed like a trahison des clercs.
Thomas J. Kearns’ view from Queens, NY, USA covers a lot of ground, including an area particularly relevant to Athelstane’s comment:
The laity did not have any choice in the matter; and neither did the individual priests. The bishops did have a choice. But I don’t know whether all of them knew they had a choice. It was before the Internet. The bishop of Campos, Brazil, continued with the Latin Mass and Sacraments, exclusively. In his diocese, the faith, the Sacraments, and vocations flourished. He retired about 10-15 years ago. They continued for a while with his precedent…but I do not know if they still do.
Recommended reading: Death of a Catholic Parish, or the book by the same title.
GO QUEENS!!!! My home borough! 🙂
You’re right. It wouldn’t be easy the other way around; and that’s because it’s easy to swim with the currents of the devil, the flesh, and the world, but difficult to swim against them.
Worth noting, lots of people did leave the Church, beginning almost immediately and extending for some years after the liturgical reform hit its stride, including large numbers of priests and religious. We just don’t hear from those people, because no one is asking, because no one in charge cares what they think.
Many of these people are coming back into the church via the traditional Masses all over. The fssp has many of them and so a revival of holiness is slowly becoming a fact. As the liberals fade out for lack of interest when they think they have won the battle, well, the devout faithful will persevere. It just takes patience.
You are dead on.
It didn’t really happy quickly. There were many revolutionaries within the clergy working for decades to destroy the Catholic religion. Some of the bishops around the world had already begun the “reforms” implemented in the Novus Ordo even before the Council began. The German and American bishops were already “doing their own thing” in their dioceses.
The Modernist heretics were quite active for over a century. Condemnations of Liberalism, Americanism, Communism, and Socialism by various popes over this timeframe made it clear that they were a force to be reckoned with.
The 1960’s was a perfect time for the enemies of Christ to strike. Western Europe was tired of wars and the sexual revolution permeated all of Western civilization. People were tired of “rules” and of authority and wanted to do their own thing, casting off all standards of morality along the way.
Tragically, the revolutionaries gained the upper hand in the Second Vatican Council with the election of John XXIII and Paul VI, both of whom were sympathetic to the various kinds of political and social revolutionaries of their time. Both of them elevated revolutionaries/dissenters of the true faith to cardinals which helped them become the majority in that Council. Both John XXIII and Paul VI, whom was elevated to cardinal by John XXIII, were of the same mind-that the Church needed to adapt itself to the errors of the modern world to have any influence upon the world at all. More importantly, Paul VI believed that the atheistic United Nations was the hope of a world at peace. JPII believed the same thing.
So the revolution within the Church began long before Vatican II. Vatican II simply became the avenue in which the anti-Christ’s within the Church obtained the power they and their forebears had been working towards having since the Protestant revolt and the French Revolution.
And like Crammer and Luther before them, they knew that there would be a revolt if they implemented their destructive “reforms” all at once, so they gradually introduced the changes to their newly created religion of Modernism into their New Order Mass, knowing that the most effective way to destroy the Catholic faith is through the liturgy, while at the same time, invented new sacraments to reflect the new religion and trained their seminarians into it. With that accomplished, they next turned to destroying all of the traditional practices of the Church such as granting annulments, the canonization process, and the way in which the Church is governed. Now they are working on destroying the moral teachings of the Church through their Synods.
Fr. Hesse said that a sentence was censored from the Church-approved 1846 AD La Salette France Apparitions, that said “there will be two moth-eaten popes.” (in French of course). I don’t think that applies to Francis because he is an anti-pope. I think that applies to John XXIII, who was reportedly a Freemason and Paul VI, who reportedly had a secret homosexuality issue. Both were instrumental in the disastrous results of the Vatican II Council.
Worm-eaten (ver moulu). I also believe they were J23 and P6.
People who would have riots to change the faith into liberalism, have no business in the church anyway. They can go to another church that allows deviancy. Liberals are out to destroy the true faith and therefore we must not give in to their wishes. Ignore them and let them disperse to other places or they will rot the church from within and cause splits all over and confusion all over. Keep the sermons conservative and that will get rid of the evil wreckovators. Make the liturgy holy and the devil flees. One does not have to do anything other than bring back beauty and moral purity and evil flees. If these demonic individuals cause riots, just have them escorted out of the sanctuary and told to go elsewhere if they will not believe in what the church has always taught.
I agree. It may take many years, but people who lack the faith will drift away, and the remaining faithful will lead the Church back to the traditional Catholic faith.
I’m 55, The knees and hips aren’t what they used to be. No kneelers. Now, the best I can do is genuflect before I receive our Lord. Soon, I won’t even be able to do that as my genuflection is getting kinda “rickety” too.
The only liturgical reform I’m really interested in would be to get rid of the “Sign of Peace”.
This is true, as we are focusing on ourselves during the Sign of Peace, when we should have our focus on Jesus Christ. We should be more worried with the peace we have with Jesus Christ first and foremost, especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Smacks of freemasonry. Shaking hands, brotherhood, fraternity, peace by purely human means, etc.
I can’t tell you how much I dislike the Sign of Peace. Either end it or perhaps if we were to do it to the one in front of us, the one in back of us and only the ones on either side (making a cross). It’s just so haphazard and awkward. Another way is a simple nod. The fact the SofP is not in the TLM, makes it my go to Mass.
Or just go to the Latin Tridentine Mass. Its all there as he describes!
Many people cannot “just go to the Latin Tridentine Mass” because there is not one celebrated anywhere reasonably near them! It’s not that easy to solve THIS problem. Any suggestions for how and where we can have more Latin Masses?
I am sure his excellency realizes that with his 10 points, we would be creating something that looks and sounds like the Latin Mass.
All these elements except for the use of Latin are in the Anglican Ordinariate’s Divine Worship. Instead of Latin, we have sacral English.
“2. During the Eucharistic liturgy – at the very least during the Eucharistic prayer – when Christ the Lamb of God is immolated, the face of the priest should not be seen by the faithful. Even the Seraphim cover their faces (Isaiah 6:2) when adoring God. Instead, the face of the priest should be turned toward the cross, the icon of the crucified God. ”
I can see the deep meaning of the gesture of the priest facing towards the cross in offering up the one holy and perfect sacrifice in union with
the flock to the heavenly Father. Beautiful and sacred, but I also can see and do very much appreciate seeing the priest as another Christ
facing the people as Christ would have been facing his disciples having so longed to share this moment with them. The disciples would have
experience him addressing them as the priest(in his person) addresses us and I see in the priest that great desire of our Lord. I see the great
sacrifice that desire will cost as the host is elevated and so with the cup. So, for me I would miss that encounter the priest gives us by
facing us as Christ would have been facing his disciples at the last supper, seeing and hearing him speak to me in the upper room of my church. God is endless in how he can touch us and reach out to us.
Jesus did not face His Apostles on the night of the Last Supper. Nor did He have His back to them; rather, they all reclined on the same side of the table facing Jerusalem for the Passover meal.
Many people have different perspectives on seating, some like the Da Vinci table, some like the the half moon seating and some like the oval seating, regardless the Lord’s head does swivel to look at his apostles and talk directedly to
each of them, great feature God made to the human head. I experience the same encounter with the Lord in his priest at mass.
What about the early churches in India, Iran and Iraq – before they were conquered by Islam? Certainly they did not face East. Did they face West? I don’t think so. I think the business about churches facing East is an excuse for the priest facing away from the congregation. But we don’t need an excuse. It appears to me that churches were sensibly built according to the land available and its particulars. In the early centuries, the priest faced away from the people because he was facing the tabernacle and doing things at the altar.
Patsy, read the Gospel of St. Matthew 24:27 “For as lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west: so shall the coming of the Son of man be.” (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Our Lord Jesus said He will come from the east, not from Jerusalem, not from Mecca. Hence, the churches in India ALSO had the liturgical east. They were NOT facing Jerusalem.
From looking at ancient Church architecture, it looks to me like they built churches sensibly according to the lay of the land. The altar was at the front of the church, N. E. S. or W., and the priest performed the holy sacrifice of the mass facing the altar and the tabernacle. It seems, that for some reason, they just do not want to say that the priest faced the altar and Jesus in the tabernacle.
Recommended reading: Death of a Catholic Parish, or the book by the same title.
Patsy said: “the priest performed the holy sacrifice of the mass facing the altar and the tabernacle.”
It is called “liturgical east.”
The Antichrist will come from the East! Jesus, when He returns, will appear to all the Believers at the same time…like lightening appears all across the sky at once.
It is no excuse, the priest is leading the people in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass towards Jesus. As Pope Benedict stated in the past, and I am paraphrasing, we have become a closed circle with the priest facing the parishioners, closed in on ourselves. He stated this in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. We worry about ourselves more than Jesus Christ today during the Mass.
I agree, Andrew, the priest should face Jesus in the tabernacle…and we should follow him. I just have seen no architectural evidence for the idea that Catholics formerly faced East to worship during Mass, e.g. that churches were built with the altar on the East side of the building. Many historic basilicas and cathedrals have multiple altars that face different directions. If facing East was important, they would not have been built that way. In the first three centuries, when Christianity was illegal, they often worshiped in the catacombs, and they would have faced the direction which allowed adequate space for the congregation. Or hidden in the larger homes of Believers, they would have faced the direction which the home’s architecture allowed. Both old and new churches are constructed according to the lay of the land, with the altar towards the direction that works for construction. I think the priests’ position, before Vatican II, was geared to his facing the altar and the tabernacle… and not about facing East. I am concerned that facing a particular direction to worship is borrowed from Islam. I have never read a saint or a father or doctor of the church who so much as mentioned facing East to worship.
I am not arguing against your point of view with regards to facing East, as the Catholic Church in my town faces North. I was only refuting the point that this was an excuse to have the priest face away from the parishioners. Having the priests face the congregation is an invention, which focused more on unifying with the world than with Jesus Christ.
Churches used to be oriented (no pun) towards the east.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientation_of_churches
The Roman rite always faced East. The Priest faced the altar, tabernacle and the crucifix, which were traditionally, architecturally, positioned in an easterly direction. The priest, as Christus Persona, led the celebrating laity to the Father. The practice of the minister facing the people is a Protestant development, a demand of Luther and in many respects symbolizes the Protestantism infecting the Catholic Church. This change of direction occurred after Vatican II; though the council did not in fact mandate this.
Take a look at church buildings…the ones built prior to Vatican II were NOT built with the altar on the East side of the church. “Liturgical east” is a manner of speaking. Facing a particular direction is a pagan custom.
“The Latin expression “ad orientem” means eastwards. In the catholic liturgy, it describes an
eastward orientation of celebrating Mass, according to the “cosmic sign of the rising sun which
symbolizes the universality of God.” [1,2] It is interesting to note that the earliest churches in
Rome had the main entrance facing east and an apse with the altar to the west; the priest
celebrating Mass stood behind the altar, facing east and so towards the people.”
It important consideration here is that facing east was deemed so important that facing the people became a secondary consideration.
Many pre- Vat Churches were consructed facing east, especually Gothic designed buildings in France and in Britain. Facing towards the rising sun was the norm. This is the direction that Christ will return.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.2338.pdf
Thank you, Bishop Schneider, for speaking to those of us that want the depths of Catholicism and not the shallows.
For those who have been asking about why the bishop (who favors the TLM) does not just advocate a return to it, here is the answer he gave to someone who asked the same question at the above-cited talk:
Q: It would seem that all of your ten points, your suggestions for renewal of the liturgy, could possibly be accomplished by simply returning to the old form of the Mass. (Applause)
BAS: (Smiling) Vox Populi, Vox Dei. (Laughter) You understood? The voice of the people is the voice of God. And you…represent the people. And even you are a lady, even more, and you also are a member of the common priesthood. And so you spoke very well. Well, it is…I’m agreeing…but we also have to consider the reality in which we live. In the vast majority of the parishes the people don’t know the ancient liturgy, and so for many of them, they are not psychologically…not ready to change completely to that older liturgy. We have to consider the psychological aspect of that. And therefore I suggested to introduce gradually these…ten points which are expressed in the ancient liturgy and which corresponds to the idea of the Second Vatican Council.
In his recent interview with Rorate Caeli, Bishop Schneider also said:
“We must always pray that God provides His Church with traditional-minded Popes.”
He has told me personally that we must pray for this. And so we shall.
Many thanks again Steve!!! Liturgy! Since I was a 10 years old altar boy (chierichetto – little cleric) at the V.O. Mass I am in love with the Liturgy and any article such as this really fills my soul with Hope! Liturgy is what kept me going in my life because it is the Lord. .
You’re always in my prayers!
To the good Bishop’s [God bless him] point #3 of Ten Elements of Renewal:
*
I have never understood when attending the OF of the Mass most of the faithful never bow when they ought to during the Nicene Creed yet they will pray the Our Father in the Orans posture. I can’t but conclude that people are doing their own thing rather than what they what they ought to be doing and obviously that cannot be pleasing to God.
Many have been instructed to hold hands, etc. I recently attended a Catholic school mass and the children even crossed the aisles to hold hands. They are not so much doing their own things as doing what they were taught to do…like communion in the hand. But at another parish, a campus parish, there were only a dozen or so children for First Communion but they received on their tongue while kneeling!
What if the liturgy was just de-renewed?
All of this is is nothing more than a pipe dream, in 98% of Roman rite Catholic parishes, here in the US. Go to the Philadelphia Archdiocese, as an example, and tell me if any of the parishes and their clergy would even care one bit about Bishop Schneider’s recommendations for Renewal. They would rather listen to Billy Gram or the 700 club, for their recommendations. Also, he is a Bishop of “Kazakstan” and not a Bishop of a major diocese in Europe, UK, or the US. Most haven’t even heard of him and think their Novus Ordo Mass is just dandy I personally have given up all hope in the renewal of the Liturgy. Like I said before it is just a Pipe Dream!. I am now attending a Greek Catholic parish, and occasionally attend vespers at a local Antiochian Orthodox Church. I don’t want to learn how to be a Protestant, like most Roman rite parishes are today. And I surely don’t need some priest looking at me when I come to worship God at church. I also will never take communion from some lay person (EMHC). That is the priests job!!!. All a dream to get people hopes up!!!. The TLM I was attending, in Allentown PA, for more than 4 years, now have to rely on the diocesan staff to offer the TLM. We used to have it weekly on Wed-Fri, at noon and Sun at 10:30am. It was perfect for my work schedule. I am a third shifter Sat-Tues. Now it is only offered on Sun, and as a “treat” Mon at noon just for lent. Like I said a pipe dream!!!!
I know this is an old post, but it is worthy of a comment.
This is not a pipedream for those of us who have wonderful, strong, TLM parishes. And it is not a pipedream for those who have the courage to pack up and move to an area where such a place exists. We have many in our parish who have done just that.
Oh, how I wish I could move to a town where TLM is offered regularly at a parish! But I am 70 and a baby boomer who still needs to work. I cannot afford to leave my job because finding another at my age would be very difficult. I pray the Lord and Our Blessed Lady would help me find a way!
Element # 11:
Restore the sense of the “vertical” and eliminate the obsession with the “horizontal” at the most sacred time of the Mass (i.e. Communion). Eliminate all human distractions and frivolity or any activity which detracts from the reverence due to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in the period immediately before Holy Communion, especially the “Sign of Peace”. No glad-handing, back-slapping, waving, high-fiving, pew-jumping, aisle-crossing, kissing, laughing or hand signals.
Just kneel down and prepare yourself for the reception into your soul of Almighty God. The frivolity can wait until after Mass.
After Mass in the parish hall please, or outside.
It is interesting that what this great bishop describes is…the Latin Mass.
As I said in a previous comment (which is old, and bears re-posting):
For those who have been asking about why the bishop (who favors the TLM) does not just advocate a return to it, here is the answer he gave to someone who asked the same question at the above-cited talk:
Q: It would seem that all of your ten points, your suggestions for renewal of the liturgy, could possibly be accomplished by simply returning to the old form of the Mass. (Applause)
BAS: (Smiling) Vox Populi, Vox Dei. (Laughter) You understood? The voice of the people is the voice of God. And you…represent the people. And even you are a lady, even more, and you also are a member of the common priesthood. And so you spoke very well. Well, it is…I’m agreeing…but we also have to consider the reality in which we live. In the vast majority of the parishes the people don’t know the ancient liturgy, and so for many of them, they are not psychologically…not ready to change completely to that older liturgy. We have to consider the psychological aspect of that. And therefore I suggested to introduce gradually these…ten points which are expressed in the ancient liturgy and which corresponds to the idea of the Second Vatican Council.
In his recent interview with Rorate Caeli, Bishop Schneider also said:
“We must always pray that God provides His Church with traditional-minded Popes.”
He has told me personally that we must pray for this. And so we shall.
He fails to understand that most Catholics have left the Novus Ordo Mass. Most European countries are averaging 3-5% Sunday Mass attendance. So for the sake of the 3% who are not psychologically ready, we shouldn’t go back. What about the 97%? They might be brought back by a change. Even here in the U.S., Mass attendance is 23-25%. 75% of Catholics are gone. If that is not an emergency that requires a new Missal and the TLM right now, then I don’t know what is. It is an utter catastrophe. He needs to grasp the magnitude of the complete and total failure of the liturgy in the Church right now.
He grasps it.
So essentially, just go back to the Traditional Mass. That covers all these points!
Good. Hopefully he can convince the thousands of other bishops in the world now…
So he is saying there should be more TLMs.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is still celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic Church — as well as by our (sadly) separated brethren of the Orthodox Church. I was blessed for a period of time to serve at the Holy Table in the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, and it was there that our Lord really gave me a deepening sense of what is described in St. John the Divine’s Book of Revelation, chapters 4 and 5.
May liturgical renewal in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church be part of the movement toward reunion among Christians — not a stew of Christianity for the 21st Century that stirs in bits and pieces of ideas from the various Christian sects to form a mixture of truth and error (which still comes out as diluted error), but a return, from error and aloofness, to the Harbour of Truth, for which Pope Pius XI — and most especially our Lord Jesus Christ — so ardently prayed.
Great article Steve and thanks again to Bishop Schneider…..but why your hand in your pocket in the photo??