Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass

[Spiller]

As a traditionally minded Catholic Christian I was thinking about why I prefer the abuse-free Pauline Mass over an abuse-free Tridentine Mass. Here is my own “top 10” of the reasons why:

It’s in a Language I Can Understand: While I certainly appreciate the Latin language, I do prefer to FOCUS on the Mass in a truly hardcore manner which I cannot do when I must use a missalette.

The Penitential Rite: Some suggest the EF has no PR, others suggest that function is filled by the celebrant and the server for the entire congregation. Either way I find it extremely cathartic for me to personally take part in the PR and humbling that everyone else present is also personally taking part in the PR.

Enlarged Reading Cycles: This sorta goes without saying. The OF exposes the faithful to FAR more of the Bible with its three cycles. This may be the #1 reason why I prefer the OF – greater exposure to God’s word within the context of the Mass.

More Readings on Sundays: Again, this sorta goes without saying. The readings from the OT and NT epistles, the sung responsorial Psalm and the proclaimed Gospel are a definite improvement of the EF offering.

Lay Readers: This is one area that I think involvement from the laity is a most positive addition to the Mass. To me it underscores the importance of reading and studying the Bible by all members of the Church.

Eucharistic Prayer Collection: The Roman Canon is still my favorite, but in no way is it optimal for all Masses given the other EPs that now exist. I appreciate how the OF allows a priest to pick the EF which best matches that day’s Mass and his own homily.

Sign of Peace: An important and humbling yet joyous part of the Mass. When visiting celebrants employ it at the daily EWTN Mass, it fills a gap and makes a most positive contribution to the Mass.

Allowance of EMsHC: Until we are choke-full with an abundance of priests and deacons once again at all Masses, there are times where the allowance of EMsHC (in a non-abusive manner per the Church) is a good thing.

Receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice: The improved sign value of receiving under both species in this matter is very important to me. Perhaps it makes me feel more like I am at the table?

The 46 approved Saturday Masses for the BVM: I REALLY appreciate these 46 individual Masses for the Blessed Virgin Mary (and their optional readings) that are approved for Saturdays.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Most of your reasons are reasons I prefer the TLM, or at least a really well done LNO with NO lay involvement.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Me too, total agreement:thumbsup: Also, I like to be able to see what is going on, especially at the consecration. What a privilege!

Which is not to say the EF isn’t just as valid a celebration of the Eucharist and that others may not prefer it for equally good reasons. One aspect I appreciate is the silence for thanksgiving after communion and the more reverent behavior of those at mass. There are those who focus better when they follow along in a missal. Some like the predictability of one Eucharistic prayer which allows them to meditate on it in depth.

I hope this thread doesn’t degenerate into an “I like it therefore it is better than the other form” discussion.

 

[bkovacs]

Most of your reasons are reasons I prefer the TLM, or at least a really well done LNO with NO lay involvement.

Same here!. Why I prefer the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo.

 

[Windmill]

As a traditionally minded Catholic Christian I was thinking about why I prefer the abuse-free Pauline Mass over an abuse-free Tridentine Mass. Here is my own “top 10” of the reasons why:

It’s in a Language I Can Understand: While I certainly appreciate the Latin language, I do prefer to FOCUS on the Mass in a truly hardcore manner which I cannot do when I must use a missalette.

I guess everyone has their preference. But keep in mind that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said that Latin was to remain the norm, the Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place, and that the people should know their parts in Latin. The idea of having an entirely vernacular Mass was not something that was foreseen by the Council Fathers. I would say that the all-vernacular Mass should be the exception and not the rule if we are to take the documents of the Council seriously.

The Penitential Rite: Some suggest the EF has no PR, others suggest that function is filled by the celebrant and the server for the entire congregation. Either way I find it extremely cathartic for me to personally take part in the PR and humbling that everyone else present is also personally taking part in the PR.

Of course the EF has a Penitential Rite. Do you imply that just because people weren’t speaking before in the EF that they weren’t “taking part”? I know that’s not your meaning, but you subtly suggest this. I think you mean that you are taking a vocal part in it. To this, I agree, however I would add that the priest’s separate Confiteor played the role of distinguishing him from the congregation, and, in my opinion, this is best brought out in the EF.

Enlarged Reading Cycles: This sorta goes without saying. The OF exposes the faithful to FAR more of the Bible with its three cycles. This may be the #1 reason why I prefer the OF – greater exposure to God’s word within the context of the Mass.

I actually do not like the expanded readings. There’s no way you can remember it all, and it turns this part of the Mass into an instructive Bible study instead of what it was meant for. It used to be that the readings applied to the given Sunday. Now, you have the Gospels going on just one chapter after the other. Also, I bet if you stand outside any parish and ask people what was read as the second reading, no one would remember. Three readings is a lot to stomach, and a lot for a priest to preach on. The purpose of the readings is not to be “instructive”, but to be “a spiritual preparation of our souls for the sacrifice and Communion. The attitude that is fitting here for these readings is not that of learning, but that of reverently letting the light of Revelation shine upon us, especially such parts of it as have a special relation to the feast, be it Christmas, Epiphany, the Ascension, of the Immaculate Conception…” (cf. Dietrich vonHildebrand’s *The Devastated Vineyard).

More Readings on Sundays: Again, this sorta goes without saying. The readings from the OT and NT epistles, the sung responsorial Psalm and the proclaimed Gospel are a definite improvement of the EF offering.

Again, I disagree that this is an improvement. See above.

Lay Readers: This is one area that I think involvement from the laity is a most positive addition to the Mass. To me it underscores the importance of reading and studying the Bible by all members of the Church.

I agree that everyone should study the Bible…but not at Mass. And lay people in the sanctuary has all but obliterated the sacredness of that space. After lay readers came EMHC’s, and now that space is no longer set apart. Why do we have to look at “participation” in terms of frenetic activity? The Latin words are *participatio actuosa, *not participatio activa. I personally think lay readers should proclaim the readings from outside the sanctuary.

 

[Windmill]

Eucharistic Prayer Collection: The Roman Canon is still my favorite, but in no way is it optimal for all Masses given the other EPs that now exist. I appreciate how the OF allows a priest to pick the EF which best matches that day’s Mass and his own homily.

Why is choice an improvement? The Roman Canon has been in use for 1500 years. These extra prayers were made up by the Consilum. Yes, they are valid since they have papal approval, but the numerous options in the new Mass give the impression that things are changeable, including the faith itself. Not only that, but the new prayers are not as sacrificial in their language.

Sign of Peace: An important and humbling yet joyous part of the Mass. When visiting celebrants employ it at the daily EWTN Mass, it fills a gap and makes a most positive contribution to the Mass.

It’s optional, and I personally am turned off this part of the Mass more than any other part. It has turned into a big Howdy-fest and has lost all liturgical meaning and solemnity as people crawl over each other to get to their friends. This was originally to be an extension of the Kiss of Peace done by clerics in the old Mass. If you ever see this, it is dramatically different than what happens at the new Mass. Not only this, but it is poor preparation for us as we are about to receive Our Lord. I think this would be better placed at the beginning of Mass, or eliminated all together.

Allowance of EMsHC: Until we are choke-full with an abundance of priests and deacons once again at all Masses, there are times where the allowance of EMsHC (in a non-abusive manner per the Church) is a good thing.

Okay, I am wrong. THIS is the worst part of the new Mass. Having unconsecrated hands distribute the Body of Christ downplays Holy Orders, clericalizes the laity (cf. JPII), and is almost always an abuse. These are doing more damage to vocations than any other entity in the Church today.

Receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice: The improved sign value of receiving under both species in this matter is very important to me. Perhaps it makes me feel more like I am at the table?

You are approaching the Altar of Sacrifice, not simply a meal, and I’m sure you understand that the Host contains the Blood of Christ, too. While I agree that the symbolism is more visually complete, utilizing this option almost always necessitates EMsHC, which is an abuse. To take “extraordinary” measures to achieve a merely “recommended” option is an abuse, and Rome has spoken to this effect. So, I’d say that this option lends itself to other abuses.

The 46 approved Saturday Masses for the BVM: I REALLY appreciate these 46 individual Masses for the Blessed Virgin Mary (and their optional readings) that are approved for Saturdays.

Okay, here I can agree with you.

 

[Spiller]

Most of your reasons are reasons I prefer the TLM, or at least a really well done LNO with NO lay involvement.

That’s pretty interesting. We all have our personal preferences. Things only get sketchy when our choices are inherently bad (ex. “Reasons I prefer not to attend the Mass at all”) or touted as being the best for all in all situations.

Would you care to give your reasons for your position? Keep in mind I said abuse-free OF and abuse-free EF. Many times people have trouble comparing the two exactly as specified by the Church without focusing on mans’ shortcomings…

 

[Spiller]

Me too, total agreement:thumbsup: Also, I like to be able to see what is going on, especially at the consecration. What a privilege!

Which is not to say the EF isn’t just as valid a celebration of the Eucharist and that others may not prefer it for equally good reasons. One aspect I appreciate is the silence for thanksgiving after communion and the more reverent behavior of those at mass. There are those who focus better when they follow along in a missal. Some like the predictability of one Eucharistic prayer which allows them to meditate on it in depth.

I hope this thread doesn’t degenerate into an “I like it therefore it is better than the other form” discussion.

“Being able to see what’s going on” is a great privilege – it’s something I enjoy, but it can also be sorta overwhelming – at least to me.

I follow the readings – for both the OF and the OF – as it helps me to focus, but I set my missalette down for the rest of the Mass.

 

[Windmill]

The rubrics in the new Mass actually assume the priest is facing ad orientem. Seeing everything is a radical concept in both Eastern and Western liturgy. The Pope, himself, has attempted to re-introduce the traditional posture of the priest facing the Lord. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated that “it was a mistake to turn the priest around.” He goes into much more detail in his wonderful book, Spirit of the Liturgy.

 

[Spiller]

I guess everyone has their preference. But keep in mind that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said that Latin was to remain the norm, the Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place, and that the people should know their parts in Latin. The idea of having an entirely vernacular Mass was not something that was foreseen by the Council Fathers. I would say that the all-vernacular Mass should be the exception and not the rule if we are to take the documents of the Council seriously.
Windmill;3798517:

Yes we all do have our own valid preferences. At the Pauline Masses I attend, the *Santus *

and Agnus Dei and sometimes the Gloria are in Latin.

Of course the EF has a Penitential Rite. Do you imply that just because people weren’t speaking before in the EF that they weren’t “taking part”? I know that’s not your meaning, but you subtly suggest this. I think you mean that you are taking a vocal part in it. To this, I agree, however I would add that the priest’s separate Confiteor played the role of distinguishing him from the congregation, and, in my opinion, this is best brought out in the EF.

When I REALLY focus when I say the Confiteor I feel a great sense of embarrassment followed by a great feeling of catharsis just as Mass is getting underway which I find to be just wonderful.

I actually do not like the expanded readings. There’s no way you can remember it all, and it turns this part of the Mass into an instructive Bible study instead of what it was meant for. It used to be that the readings applied to the given Sunday. Now, you have the Gospels going on just one chapter after the other. Also, I bet if you stand outside any parish and ask people what was read as the second reading, no one would remember. Three readings is a lot to stomach, and a lot for a priest to preach on. The purpose of the readings is not to be “instructive”, but to be “a spiritual preparation of our souls for the sacrifice and Communion. The attitude that is fitting here for these readings is not that of learning, but that of reverently letting the light of Revelation shine upon us, especially such parts of it as have a special relation to the feast, be it Christmas, Epiphany, the Ascension, of the Immaculate Conception…” (cf. Dietrich vonHildebrand’s The Devastated Vineyard).

Again, I disagree that this is an improvement. See above.

I love the expanded readings. I am more nourished by the Liturgy of the Word in the OF than the EF.

I agree that everyone should study the Bible…but not at Mass. And lay people in the sanctuary has all but obliterated the sacredness of that space. After lay readers came EMHC’s, and now that space is no longer set apart. Why do we have to look at “participation” in terms of frenetic activity? The Latin words are *participatio actuosa, *

not participatio activa. I personally think lay readers should proclaim the readings from outside the sanctuary.

I cannot think of a better better place anywhere than to study the Bible then in the midst of the Liturgy of the Word, often before the Blessed Sacrament, replete with a homily from a Catholic Priest.

I don’t think allowing lay readers into the sanctuary has in any way “obliterated the sacredness of that space.” Altar servers have always been in the sanctuary as anecdotal proof.

The dignity of the word of God demands that it be read from the sanctuary and not the nave.

 

[Spiller]

Why is choice an improvement? The Roman Canon has been in use for 1500 years. These extra prayers were made up by the Consilum. Yes, they are valid since they have papal approval, but the numerous options in the new Mass give the impression that things are changeable, including the faith itself. Not only that, but the new prayers are not as sacrificial in their language.

Some EPs are simply more appropriate with certain Mass propers/readings/homilies. #1 is still my favorite – just simply not at all Masses.

It’s optional, and I personally am turned off this part of the Mass more than any other part. It has turned into a big Howdy-fest and has lost all liturgical meaning and solemnity as people crawl over each other to get to their friends. This was originally to be an extension of the Kiss of Peace done by clerics in the old Mass. If you ever see this, it is dramatically different than what happens at the new Mass. Not only this, but it is poor preparation for us as we are about to receive Our Lord. I think this would be better placed at the beginning of Mass, or eliminated all together.

I really love the sign of peace. It’s important as a community of Christians to affirm “peace be with you” from time to time in a dignified manner and that point in the Mass is a wonderful time to do so. This is one area where the daily EWTN Mass is truly deficient. It saddens me too because they could use their daily Mass as the perfect way to show a reverent Sign of Peace.

Okay, I am wrong. THIS is the worst part of the new Mass. Having unconsecrated hands distribute the Body of Christ downplays Holy Orders, clericalizes the laity (cf. JPII), and is almost always an abuse. These are doing more damage to vocations than any other entity in the Church today.

I simply follow the Church on this one, and not my own ego or notions. In no way do I think the licit use of EMsHC “downplays Holy Orders or clericalizes the laity.” None. If it did, I seriously doubt the Church would permit it.

You are approaching the Altar of Sacrifice, not simply a meal, and I’m sure you understand that the Host contains the Blood of Christ, too. While I agree that the symbolism is more visually complete, utilizing this option almost always necessitates EMsHC, which is an abuse. To take “extraordinary” measures to achieve a merely “recommended” option is an abuse, and Rome has spoken to this effect. So, I’d say that this option lends itself to other abuses.

The GIRM speaks of this “sign value” as well. It is extremely important. although certainly not mandatory.

 

[Spiller]

The rubrics in the new Mass actually assume the priest is facing ad orientem. Seeing everything is a radical concept in both Eastern and Western liturgy. The Pope, himself, has attempted to re-introduce the traditional posture of the priest facing the Lord. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated that “it was a mistake to turn the priest around.” He goes into much more detail in his wonderful book, Spirit of the Liturgy.

I think both orientations have their pluses and minuses.

I like the Pope’s same comments in said book about the use of an altar crucifix to mitigate against potential problems with the priest facing the people.

 

[Windmill]

Yes we all do have our own valid preferences. At the Pauline Masses I attend, the *Santus *and Agnus Dei and sometimes the Gloria are in Latin.

My hat is off to your priest and choir. This is the exception, and not what one typically finds.

When I REALLY focus when I say the Confiteor I feel a great sense of embarrassment followed by a great feeling of catharsis just as Mass is getting underway which I find to be just wonderful.

As I do when I pray, interiorly, the confiteor and penitential rite in the EF.

I love the expanded readings. I am more nourished by the Liturgy of the Word in the OF than the EF.

Great! But I am tired of hearing that this is such a great thing when, in fact, it is not a purely positive change. It has its draw backs, as does a repetitive cycle of readings like in the EF.

I cannot think of a better better place anywhere than to study the Bible then in the midst of the Liturgy of the Word, often before the Blessed Sacrament, replete with a homily from a Catholic Priest.

As I indicated in my previous post, even Dietrich von Hildebrand, the “20th century Doctor of the Church” (cf Pope Pius XII) insisted that the primary purpose of the readings at Mass should not be “instructive”, but yet he said that this is what the expanded cycle of readings has turned into. He highly recommended Bible studies outside of Mass.

I don’t think allowing lay readers into the sanctuary has in any way “obliterated the sacredness of that space.” Altar servers have always been in the sanctuary as anecdotal proof.

The dignity of the word of God demands that it be read from the sanctuary and not the nave.

Maybe obliterated is a strong word, I would say that it has downplayed the sacredness of that space when someone approaches from the pews and goes into what used to be a space reserved for clerics. In the old rite, altar servers were considered clerics for the duration of the Mass, even if they were laymen (or lay-boys).

 

[Windmill]

Some EPs are simply more appropriate with certain Mass propers/readings/homilies. #1 is still my favorite – just simply not at all Masses.

I don’t understand this one. Can I have an example of what you mean? Does this imply that before Vatican II, the Roman Canon was not appropriate?

I really love the sign of peace. It’s important as a community of Christians to affirm “peace be with you” from time to time in a dignified manner and that point in the Mass is a wonderful time to do so. This is one area where the daily EWTN Mass is truly deficient. It saddens me too because they could use their daily Mass as the perfect way to show a reverent Sign of Peace.

I love the fact that the priests at EWTN don’t use this option. Many find it distracting. It’s not about affirming each other with our own blessings, but, rather, about imparting the Peace of Christ. This is part of the problem, it’s now all about us.

I simply follow the Church on this one, and not my own ego or notions. In no way do I think the licit use of EMsHC “downplays Holy Orders or clericalizes the laity.” None. If it did, I seriously doubt the Church would permit it.

Rome has said that the habitual use of EMsHC at Mass is forbidden. I follow the Church on this one. Also, when what once was reserved for the priest is now fair game for anyone, it most certainly de-emphasizes the fact that “to distribute Holy Communion is a privilege of the ordained” (cf JPII).

 

[Windmill]

I think both orientations have their pluses and minuses.

I like the Pope’s same comments in said book about the use of an altar crucifix to mitigate against potential problems with the priest facing the people.

I agree. However, I think the best thing is to return to the age old practice of the priest facing the same way as the people. Again, Ratzinger himself said, “it was a mistake to turn the priest around.” I agree with the Holy Father on this one.

I will make this my last post, since I don’t want this to be a thread of ill feelings. Both rites are valid, and both can be celebrated with dignity. Both can be abused, as well. My reasons for commenting on this thread were to show that some of your preferences were contrary to the nature of liturgy or outright abuses in and of themselves (example, regular use of EMsHC).

Since you posted this on the “Traditional Catholicism” forum, I can only assume that you wanted some feedback. That I have tried to give as charitably as I could. I attend a Pauline Mass on Sundays with my family, and I am a founding member of a men’s gregorian chant group (www.brazoschant.org) which sings mostly at Pauline Masses. We can both agree that there can be much dignity in the Pauline Mass if done without abuse. However, there are many abuses that have become institutionalized, and it will be an uphill battle to correct these.

But it will happen.

 

[Spiller]

My hat is off to your priest and choir. This is the exception, and not what one typically finds.

OK

As I do when I pray, interiorly, the confiteor and penitential rite in the EF.

OK

Great! But I am tired of hearing that this is such a great thing when, in fact, it is not a purely positive change. It has its draw backs, as does a repetitive cycle of readings like in the EF.

It’s 100% purely positive to me.

As I indicated in my previous post, even Dietrich von Hildebrand, the “20th century Doctor of the Church” (cf Pope Pius XII) insisted that the primary purpose of the readings at Mass should not be “instructive”, but yet he said that this is what the expanded cycle of readings has turned into. He highly recommended Bible studies outside of Mass.

Again, I don’t know of a single setting that is more appropriate for studying and being nourished by the word of God then within the Mass. Does that mean it’s the primary focus of the Mass? Nope, and I never suggested it was either.

Maybe obliterated is a strong word, I would say that it has downplayed the sacredness of that space when someone approaches from the pews and goes into what used to be a space reserved for clerics. In the old rite, altar servers were considered clerics for the duration of the Mass, even if they were laymen (or lay-boys).

Not to me, no way. I don’t believe the Church would allow if, if what you suggest is true. Interesting to note though that the pulpit used to be outside of the communion railing.

 

[Spiller]

I don’t understand this one. Can I have an example of what you mean? Does this imply that before Vatican II, the Roman Canon was not appropriate?

Be careful now. No where did I suggest or even hint at the notion that “before Vatican II, the Roman Canon was not appropriate.”

I love the fact that the priests at EWTN don’t use this option. Many find it distracting. It’s not about affirming each other with our own blessings, but, rather, about imparting the Peace of Christ. This is part of the problem, it’s now all about us.

It’s a sad shortcoming in their Masses even though it is optional. I really love it when visiting bishops celebrate the Mass. All to my recollection call for the Sign of Peace and it is carried out in a reverent and warm manner – just as the Church instructs.

Rome has said that the habitual use of EMsHC at Mass is forbidden. I follow the Church on this one. Also, when what once was reserved for the priest is now fair game for anyone, it most certainly de-emphasizes the fact that “to distribute Holy Communion is a privilege of the ordained” (cf JPII).

No, the Church has not said that. The Church has said that the use of EMsHC must follow a true need. Sadly with the current shortage of clerics a true need often exists at many parishes – particularly at those parishes with large attendance created consolidation of multiple parishes into one. Earlier you said:

"…utilizing this option almost always necessitates EMsHC, which is an abuse. To take “extraordinary” measures to achieve a merely “recommended” option is an abuse, and Rome has spoken to this effect.

Your comment is deeply in error. The Church has never said to limit communion to one species so as to limit the number of EMsHC. Not ever. Not even an inference. To suggest otherwise is wrong – and in this case, rather pernicious.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Spiller - I think you’ve put too much stock in what are, really, just options and idiosyncracies. The Pauline Rite, as expressed in the GIRM, would look and feel very much different if parishes around the world used the ordinary instead of the optional on every allowable point of liturgical celebration.

If the ordinary was chosen, you’d have:

Latin
Ad Orientam posture of the celebrant
Chant

…I wonder how you’d feel about it then?

So, let’s not talk about the intention of the Church as concerns typical Masses in the vernacular…that itself was not the intention of the Church in the first place.

I totally understand feeling good about how you worship. However, just because you feel good about it doesn’t mean it makes theological sense.

The “sign of peace” is a severe problem in many places. I can see why you like it, bonhomie is not an evil, after all. Can you see why many do not? Personally, I’d wager $5 that it’s gone within 25 years.

 

[Spiller]

I agree. However, I think the best thing is to return to the age old practice of the priest facing the same way as the people. Again, Ratzinger himself said, “it was a mistake to turn the priest around.” I agree with the Holy Father on this one.

I follow what the Church actually directs, not a book written by a singular cardinal before he became the Pope.

I have read this book too. Note his comments about the effects of tearing-up sanctuaries to implement changes and the impact on the faithful. That’s the very reason believe it wouldn’t be good to demand “ad orientum” orientation right now. I seriously doubt that demand will come during the current pontificate either.

I will make this my last post, since I don’t want this to be a thread of ill feelings. Both rites are valid, and both can be celebrated with dignity. Both can be abused, as well. My reasons for commenting on this thread were to show that some of your preferences were contrary to the nature of liturgy or outright abuses in and of themselves (example, regular use of EMsHC).

Actually I think the tenor of this thread has been quite civil. I don’t see any of my positions being “contrary to the nature of liturgy.” Certainly none are abuses – all are approved by the Catholic Church. If the Church approves of something, it’s not within my competency to suggest that I know better than She does.

Since you posted this on the “Traditional Catholicism” forum, I can only assume that you wanted some feedback. That I have tried to give as charitably as I could. I attend a Pauline Mass on Sundays with my family, and I am a founding member of a men’s gregorian chant group (www.brazoschant.org) which sings mostly at Pauline Masses. We can both agree that there can be much dignity in the Pauline Mass if done without abuse. However, there are many abuses that have become institutionalized, and it will be an uphill battle to correct these.

But it will happen.

I primary reason I posted it here because there are HUGE numbers of traditionally-minded Catholics who prefer the Pauline Mass in this world.

I won’t read let alone comment on postings that focus on liturgical abuses. I am comparing the Pauline Mass as defined by the Church to the Tridentine Mass as defined by the Church sans variances by Man – for either form.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Reading the responses above…what is this thread doing in this forum? This is far, far from “Traditional”.

Spiller, you have to know that anyone that defends the shenannigans of EMHCs is on “the other team”.
**
I primary reason I posted it here because there are HUGE numbers of traditionally-minded Catholics who prefer the Pauline Mass in this world.**

Surely you don’t claim to be one of them?