"traditionalizing" the ordinary form

[FEQuis]

I don’t understand the concept of “traditionalizing” the ordinary form at all.

The first and primary problem with the OF is most places don’t celebrate it as promulgated. Fix that first and a lot of crazy things disappear.

Second, get rid of some of the indults that have proved disasterous such as CITH and then the OF can be viewed on its original merits, not the whims of a particular diocese or pastor.

Which makes more clear, to me at least, the confusion of “traditionalization”.

If one looks at the OF as promulgated, then the only way to really “traditionalize” it is to pretty much gut everything except the new Calendar and return to the EF liturgy. Adding incense and Latin to the OF doesn’t “traditionalize” the liturgy itself.

And if one looks at what V2 actually asked be done to the liturgy, one would see that most of it could have been accomplished by changing the Calendar, etc. It never asked for a new liturgy which is what happened after the council.

The reform-of-the-reform crowd point out, and rightly so, that incense, chant, Latin, etc., are already valid options under the OF, and in some cases are actually encouraged - though many pastors and bishops ignore the encouragement. They point out there is no need to “traditionalize” - they believe the NOM is fine on its own merits; it’s just not implemented properly in a lot of places.

So, to me “traditionalizing” in the properly understood sense of the word is not possible. There are things that can be done to make the OF more reverent and orthodox in a given parish, but those don’t have to do with changing the liturgy itself - those have to do with the bishops and pastors actually following what came out of Rome - EWTN has a reverent and orthodox OF, for example.

But the EWTN Mass is no more “traditional” than a Mass at a progressive parish because the liturgy itself is different. Sarum Rite, Anglican Use, Tridentine Rite, etc., all are traditional because they are rooted in the same liturgical practices and traditions.

NOM is not - it is a patchwork of historical practices with some innovations and a lot of options offered. To traditionalize it would be to return it to the same family of practices as Sarum, Anglican, Tridentine, etc., and then it would no longer be the same liturgy. So it is pointless.

Personally I think people should go to the EF. But for those that go to the OF and like that concept of liturgy and want to fix some problems, I think rather than looking at “traditionalizing” it - which is a misnomer - what should be looked at first is getting pastors and bishops to follow the rules that already exist and also to get the Church to revoke some of the indults that JP2 allowed that have been proven, IMO, detrimental.

 

[CDNowak]

Which makes more clear, to me at least, the confusion of “traditionalization”.

If one looks at the OF as promulgated, then the only way to really “traditionalize” it is to pretty much gut everything except the new Calendar and return to the EF liturgy. Adding incense and Latin to the OF doesn’t “traditionalize” the liturgy itself.

And if one looks at what V2 actually asked be done to the liturgy, one would see that most of it could have been accomplished by changing the Calendar, etc. It never asked for a new liturgy which is what happened after the council.

I certainly agree with your observations on what the Council asked for. While looking for continuity it would be easier to begin with the EF, practically the OF has to be the basis for reaching the majority of Catholics. This can [only?] be done piecemeal, celebrating as written (including Latin, ad orientem) with a heavy preference for the options retained from the EF (Roman Canon, Confietor), and a restoration of the propers. That relies on a grassroots effort at this point. Then the hard part of adding back in prayers comes into play: Offertory, Foot of the Altar, Muda Cor Meum, Lavabo, etc. all need approval from Rome (as well as a general reform of the calendar).

The reform-of-the-reform crowd point out, and rightly so, that incense, chant, Latin, etc., are already valid options under the OF, and in some cases are actually encouraged - though many pastors and bishops ignore the encouragement. They point out there is no need to “traditionalize” - they believe the NOM is fine on its own merits; it’s just not implemented properly in a lot of places.

I am afraid I have a slight quibble with this: The reform-of the-reform crowd is divided on this (even at NLM, IIRC). Many of us want to see substantial change to the OF (as outlined above), but are unsure of the timing when we have such a mess on our hands (and we have to wait for Rome).

There, in the long game, if you will, a hope for real traditionalization. It will still not be the EF, but would bear more resemblance to it than to the current OF, especially in the text of the liturgy itself.

 

[PJM]

=Kerygmatic;6912913]I personally find the Novus Ordo Rite potentially more promising to developing a traditional liturgical witness than the old Tridentine Rite. For one, I like the feel of form four of Novus Ordo. I also like the fact that the Second Vatican Council calls for a return to communion in both species. Would that that be implemented. Indeed, the way EWTN does Novus Ordo is quite appealing. Now if only they have their priests face the right way and not “perform” for the people but lead them in prayer, that would be positive. Communion in both kinds again would be the right way to go. Putting the epiklesis in its right place after the words of consecration. That would make Novus Ordo more legitimate in terms of what the Eucharist should be.

Kerygmatic

Actually friend the Fathers of Vatican II voted NOT TO HAVE COMMUNION IN BOTH SPECIES at random OR IN THE HAND… period.

For the sake of accuracy I submit the following:

Read "Memoriale Domini” Which by the way also makes this statement: “Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to SACRED MINISTERS or MEN specially designated for THIS PURPOSE.”

Then in the GRIM under “ Cenam paschalem” NUMBER 42 LIST 14 VERY SPECIFIC AND PRECISE CONDITIONS FOR THE DISTRUBUTION OF HOLY COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES….

Everyday t everyone, everywhere [nearly] was NOT one of the authorized uses!

Love an prayers,

Pat

 

[PJM]

=CradleCath;6918876]Thank you so much for actually comparing the prayers of the EF. to those of the O.F., I’ve tried to do that a few times…to no avail. The posters on the thread just kept discussing Latin, Ad Orientem, etc.

Few seem to realize that the theology of the two Masses is different. The Novus Ordo Mass celebrates the Last Supper…much like Cranmer’s Mass did. The TLM. focuses on Calvary.

Absolutely & those who infer that it’s just “smells & bells” do a great disservice… not only to those of us who prefer the TLM., but to the Latin Mass in general.

THANKS… WELL DONE!

I wounder how many even know what you’ve just shared?

I wounder who cares?

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[FEQuis]

I am afraid I have a slight quibble with this: The reform-of the-reform crowd is divided on this (even at NLM, IIRC). Many of us want to see substantial change to the OF (as outlined above), but are unsure of the timing when we have such a mess on our hands (and we have to wait for Rome).

Some of that doesn’t have to wait for Rome, though. Get some good bishops in there to clean up some of the dioceses and re-Catechize the faithful. A lot of problems are that people in the pew who are of good heart don’t know and just follow some heterodox pastor’s example.

But, yeah, obviously major changes have to wait for Rome. So does removing heterodox bishops.

There, in the long game, if you will, a hope for real traditionalization. It will still not be the EF, but would bear more resemblance to it than to the current OF, especially in the text of the liturgy itself.

I agree with most of your sentiments, but I think what happens in practice if not in theory is not a traditionalization of the OF but starting over. Ironically, or maybe not, that’s what the Council actually asked for: take the traditional Latin Rite liturgy and make some changes to it; but the changes they wanted certainly weren’t to gut the Canon, etc.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone coming from a trad, but my opinion is that the Novus Ordo Missae should be scrapped in toto, go back to the 1962 Missal (or even the one from the 50’s), and start from there if there is a need for any type of liturgical reform.

This isn’t even from a theological perspective, but a practical one: the NOM cow is out of the barn, and it won’t be put back in. The “progressives”, liberals, and Modernists see it as their victory (especially with the abuses they push into it), and they’re going to fight every attempt to make it more orthodox, etc. They need that Missal and GIRM as-is to get away with their nonsense, heresy, etc. because it gives them the room they need to maneuver. The TLM with its rubrics allows for a lot less nonsense, the nonsense that occurs is more easily spotted, and orthodoxy is easier to enforce.

Again, no surprise here considering I’m a trad, but I think the Church should make the 62 Missal the “ordinary” Mass for the orthodox faithful and let the NOM fade into obscurity with the heterodox distorters of it. When they die off, then liturgical changes can be looked at honestly by people who want to be orthodox and improve the liturgy rather than use the liturgy as a vehicle for heterodoxy, which, IMO, is what the NOM and the indults and options around it make it useful for.

 

[pnewton]

The Novus Ordo Mass celebrates the Last Supper…much like Cranmer’s Mass did. The TLM. focuses on Calvary.

First, I do not agree with your assesment, as both Mass have Calvary as the focus. It is inherent in the nature of the Mass. I am of the opinion that brevity is the sole of wit. Longer prayers may include more theology, but do not aid in worship for people. Little of this is relevant though, as whatever form of Mass that one attends or prefers, it is whether **his **focus on the Cross that matters the most.

 

[FEQuis]

First, I do not agree with your assesment, as both Mass have Calvary as the focus. It is inherent in the nature of the Mass

One may have a better focus than the other through its words and actions.

Longer prayers may include more theology, but do not aid in worship for people.

It depends on what you mean to aid in worship. The prayers are directed to God, so they should be whatever is befitting Him for worship, and if they are, then someone has a good worship, in the external forum.

Internally, the prayers help the disposition of the people, and the prayers help worship in the internal forum.

So, in that sense, it is true that longer does not mean better. However, the quality of the prayers and the effects on the internal and external forums is important. If some prayers more clearly state the intentions, that helps both the reception of the prayer and the internal disposition.

Little of this is relevant though, as whatever form of Mass that one attends or prefers, it is whether **his **focus on the Cross that matters the most.

No, it does matter. Without focus on the Sacrifice one surely will lose graces, but the prayers and form of Mass go directly to that focus and inform the disposition of the Mass-goer.

Mass is more than the Consecration and Sacrifice itself, though that is the center. If the rest - i.e., the prayers and rubrics - were not relevant, Mass would consist solely of Consecration and Communion, last about ten minutes, and then we could all go home.

The reality is everything about the liturgy from the Asperges me to the Last Gospel - or the absence thereof - are relevant and important.

 

[Timothy17]

Ad orientum ; that is, looking towards the return of Christ. Should we substitute the symbol (facing East) for the thing signified (Christ’s return) ? Which is more important ? Traditional I am, yet I would be a fool if I proclaimed that facing East was more important than that which it signified ; namely, looking to, and awaiting, and hoping for Christ’s glorious return.

Traditional as I am, I am Traditional because that which is signified in the Old rite is that Truth which never changes. It’s the manifold truths and good-witnesses to Christ in the Old Rite, and the deepness of them, that give rise to its pre-eminence - and my desire for Christ : to know of Him, learn of Him, and be filled with Him ever more deeply. That is the source of my desire for the Old rite, though I would be a liar if I were to say that Christ’s fullness is not found in the New one, for He Himself is and becomes Present in it. Now what can we furnish for so great a King ? What expense can we spare, what homage can we not pay ? Truly, in this sense, no rite is worthy, for He is not satisfied with material things and forms, and the obeisance of man ; however, it is the very Truth these things signify, and contain, and convey that is the substance, and importance of the rites. The rites also are a teaching, insomuch as they speak to all of man’s senses, and impart Truth to him, and they are good if they point and lead man to Christ, Who is Truth, Who desires all men to be filled with Him, so that He may become all in all.

It offends me when abuses are performed in the Mass, or when it seems that we in some way make a mockery of Him, or think little of Him or His Kingship and Authority, and so forth. But yet I am also coming to realize that we cannot possibly do enough to satisfy for what He Himself has done for us, and for who He truly is. In Truth, if there be any good in the form of the rites, it be that they teach, signify, and convey Truth, and do so in such a way as to lift man’s hearts to heaven, and insomuch as it succeeds in conveying Truth, and converting those hearts to Him, then we can say the rites are good or bad ; otherwise, we substitute traditions for the Sacred Tradition, which is God’s express Truth, or God’s Truth expressed.

As ever, if I err, I submit what I say to Holy Mother Church,
Pax,
Tim

 

[infanteedu]

The Church isn’t trying to ‘GO BACK’ for ‘sentimental feelings’. You just pointed out that Mass attendance was much higher pre-V2 so your argument is circular. Now that I attend the EF and use a missal I’ve never participated so much in my life. Many people at the OF are just going through the motions. As you pointed out, most stay home.

 

[infanteedu]

Had the Church kept the EF by now the churches probably would be empty. Besides there was the fear of going to hell for not attending Mass. About using the missal when attending the EF. But WHAT’s the purpose of it? The Word of God must be PROCLAIMED not read, people would have to buy a missal, be instructed on its use and remember to bring it to church…But what’s the point? Do we want to belong to an elite that can do these things? What about the millions and millions of Catholics who either can’t read or can’t be trained to use a missal…What about those people who live in missionary lands (now, practically all countries belong nin this category)…do the missionaries have to instruct them how to read the missal (and give them money to buy them). Isn’t it simple to follow the advice of Saint Paul who says that Faith comes from HEARING the message, not reading about. Doesn’t anyone knows that NOT EVEN THE MONKS (Trappists) in the US use Gregorian Chant and Latin?
I won’t revisit this topic any more. Jesus said “Go to all nations and TEACH…” I know that many will never change their way of thinking, but from the PASTORAL point of view I’m willing to cotinue with the OF even though I realize that there are MANY abuses which must be corrected.
Ed Infantge

 

[OraLabora]

Doesn’t anyone knows that NOT EVEN THE MONKS (Trappists) in the US use Gregorian Chant and Latin?

There are other monks than just Trappists (and they still maintain the Salve Regina in Latin at Compline incidentally).

The Benedictines of the Solesmes congregation still use Gregorian chant and do so in Canada and at several places in the US. The Carthusians at least at the Grande Chartreuse in France also still use it.

I have also been to OF Masses in Gregorian chant that were very beautiful, in Italy.

It is the proper music of the Catholic Church even for the Ordinary Form. Even after Vatican II. Get used to it as it is making a revival.

 

[malphono]

There are other monks than just Trappists (and they still maintain the Salve Regina in Latin at Compline incidentally).

The Benedictines of the Solesmes congregation still use Gregorian chant and do so in Canada and at several places in the US. The Carthusians at least at the Grande Chartreuse in France also still use it.

I have also been to OF Masses in Gregorian chant that were very beautiful, in Italy.

It is the proper music of the Catholic Church even for the Ordinary Form. Even after Vatican II. Get used to it as it is making a revival.

So, too, the Cistercians, although the degree depends on the particular abbey. There is also, I believe, at least one Trappist Abbey (Mariawald?) that has reprised the traditional Cistercisn Rite in its entirety.

 

[onmyknees]

Hi, I have not studied much about the two different liturgies but I do remember how reverent the ef was as a little girl. I loved latin prqyers and chanting, the bells and the incense because, even then, it raised my heart and mind to God. It seemed so holy and mystical!

I left the church at about 17 probably because of all the stuff that happened after V11. I remember hating the folk music. Since coming back I have been to one ef and it was so beautiful, done by the fraternity of saint peter’s society. I did not continue to go back to the ef though for these reasons. Even though I love the latin it was hard to follow along with the missal and I like to hear the prayers and participate. Not have to read them. I also did not like wearing a head covering and long skirts and I felt out of place with the Catholics there. Like I did not fit into their group.

I do like the priest facing east because of it’s meaning and tradition and also I think it is very uncomfortable for some of the priests and people to have to look at one another. It does distract from what is really going on! I would love to have more latin in the NO and definately latin chanting. Our priest uses incense quite often, we always have the bells rung three times at the concecration, we kneel then too and after receiving. we chant the Agnus Dei. I do think the sign of peace should be eliminated or put at the end of the mass. EM’s should not be on the altar.

 

[malphono]

Hi, I have not studied much about the two different liturgies but I do remember how reverent the ef was as a little girl. I loved latin prqyers and chanting, the bells and the incense because, even then, it raised my heart and mind to God. It seemed so holy and mystical!

I left the church at about 17 probably because of all the stuff that happened after V11. I remember hating the folk music. Since coming back I have been to one ef and it was so beautiful, done by the fraternity of saint peter’s society. I did not continue to go back to the ef though for these reasons. Even though I love the latin it was hard to follow along with the missal and I like to hear the prayers and participate. Not have to read them. I also did not like wearing a head covering and long skirts and I felt out of place with the Catholics there. Like I did not fit into their group.

It’s very possible that your hesitancy to return to the EF is due more to “the group” than it is to the actual Mass. Following the missal, etc, does take a bit of getting used to, but for most folks who are interested, it’s two or three times and they’ve got it. OTOH, though, getting used to “the group” can be a far more daunting task. Many parishes offering the EF have such a “group” but no such “group” should keep someone from assisting at the Mass of his/her choice.

I’ll no doubt get slammed for saying this, but the business of “dress codes” drives me bonkers. All that is asked is that one dress modestly and appropriately. Although they often try to do so, “the group” has no right to impose a “dress code” beyond that. There is no longer a requirement that a woman wear a head covering at Mass, whether EF or otherwise. There never was a requirement that a woman had to wear a prairie dress.

 

[FEQuis]

Had the Church kept the EF by now the churches probably would be empty.

That is conjecture and there is no evidence of that whatsoever. If any conclusion at all can be made, and it is doubtful that one can be, it shows the churches emptying after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae. Is it because of the Missal or is it cultural? Good question.

Besides there was the fear of going to hell for not attending Mass.

That’s still a Church teaching, and one of the ten commandments. Missing Mass without a good reason is mortal sin and can incur damnation. Neither the NOM nor V2 changed that rule.

About using the missal when attending the EF. But WHAT’s the purpose of it? The Word of God must be PROCLAIMED not read, people would have to buy a missal, be instructed on its use and remember to bring it to church…

You don’t need a Missal to go to the TLM once you’re familiar with it, just like the OF or Byantine Rite. In fact, the need for a Missal is less at a TLM than at an OF because the participation of the laity is usually silent rather than responsorial. At the TLM one responds mostly interiorly while at the OF one responds mostly exteriorly.

But what’s the point? Do we want to belong to an elite that can do these things? What about the millions and millions of Catholics who either can’t read or can’t be trained to use a missal…What about those people who live in missionary lands (now, practically all countries belong nin this category)…do the missionaries have to instruct them how to read the missal (and give them money to buy them). Isn’t it simple to follow the advice of Saint Paul who says that Faith comes from HEARING the message, not reading about. Doesn’t anyone knows that NOT EVEN THE MONKS (Trappists) in the US use Gregorian Chant and Latin?

Again, you don’t need the Missal. Do you think in the history of the TLM and all the precursor Masses with the same Canon everyone could read or carried around a Missal? Before the printing press, only the nobility and the clergy had books because of the expense, but everyone went to Mass. So, your argument doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

But you bring up a good point that I often make about either Sola or Prima Scriptura. Not reading the Bible doesn’t send one to hell or every illiterate person since Christ would be roasting there. But that’s a different topic.

I won’t revisit this topic any more. Jesus said “Go to all nations and TEACH…” I know that many will never change their way of thinking, but from the PASTORAL point of view I’m willing to cotinue with the OF even though I realize that there are MANY abuses which must be corrected.
Ed Infantge

Yes, and God also said keep holy the Sabbath but you seem to imply missing Mass isn’t a sin. Your argument about needing a Missal also falls short based on historical fact and in current practice.

 

[Victorious]

I’ll no doubt get slammed for saying this, but the business of “dress codes” drives me bonkers. All that is asked is that one dress modestly and appropriately. Although they often try to do so, “the group” has no right to impose a “dress code” beyond that. There is no longer a requirement that a woman wear a head covering at Mass, whether EF or otherwise. There never was a requirement that a woman had to wear a prairie dress.

I’d agree, but with one qualification. There needs to be a list of things that shouldn’t be worn to Mass. Immodesty is so prevalent nowadays, even among devout persons, that some guidance is called for. But I think guidelines should follow the approach that whatever isn’t forbidden is permitted (not unlike the Ten Commandments), rather than affirmatively dictating what must be worn.

As far as head coverings for women, I would like to see a return of that custom. (And I’m a woman, so don’t leap down my throat.)

 

[onmyknees]

It’s very possible that your hesitancy to return to the EF is due more to “the group” than it is to the actual Mass. Following the missal, etc, does take a bit of getting used to, but for most folks who are interested, it’s two or three times and they’ve got it. OTOH, though, getting used to “the group” can be a far more daunting task. Many parishes offering the EF have such a “group” but no such “group” should keep someone from assisting at the Mass of his/her choice.

I’ll no doubt get slammed for saying this, but the business of “dress codes” drives me bonkers. All that is asked is that one dress modestly and appropriately. Although they often try to do so, “the group” has no right to impose a “dress code” beyond that. There is no longer a requirement that a woman wear a head covering at Mass, whether EF or otherwise. There never was a requirement that a woman had to wear a prairie dress.

Yes, I think you are right about the reason I have not gone back to the ef. I just don’t feel comfortable in the group. I think it is my problem more than theirs. I feel intimidated by them. Thank you for telling me that it is okay to not wear long skirts and head coverings. I think I will give it another try.

 

[PJM]

=FEQuis;6921276]Some of that doesn’t have to wait for Rome, though. Get some good bishops in there to clean up some of the dioceses and re-Catechize the faithful. A lot of problems are that people in the pew who are of good heart don’t know and just follow some heterodox pastor’s example.

But, yeah, obviously major changes have to wait for Rome. So does removing heterodox bishops.

I agree with most of your sentiments, but I think what happens in practice if not in theory is not a traditionalization of the OF but starting over. Ironically, or maybe not, that’s what the Council actually asked for: take the traditional Latin Rite liturgy and make some changes to it; but the changes they wanted certainly weren’t to gut the Canon, etc.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone coming from a trad, but my opinion is that the Novus Ordo Missae should be scrapped in toto, go back to the 1962 Missal (or even the one from the 50’s), and start from there if there is a need for any type of liturgical reform.

This isn’t even from a theological perspective, but a practical one: the NOM cow is out of the barn, and it won’t be put back in. The “progressives”, liberals, and Modernists see it as their victory (especially with the abuses they push into it), and they’re going to fight every attempt to make it more orthodox, etc. They need that Missal and GIRM as-is to get away with their nonsense, heresy, etc. because it gives them the room they need to maneuver. The TLM with its rubrics allows for a lot less nonsense, the nonsense that occurs is more easily spotted, and orthodoxy is easier to enforce.

Again, no surprise here considering I’m a trad, but I think the Church should make the 62 Missal the “ordinary” Mass for the orthodox faithful and let the NOM fade into obscurity with the heterodox distorters of it. When they die off, then liturgical changes can be looked at honestly by people who want to be orthodox and improve the liturgy rather than use the liturgy as a vehicle for heterodoxy, which, IMO, is what the NOM and the indults and options around it make it useful for.

It took years to BREAK it and now that it [The NO Mass] is assimilated it will take even longr to repair it.

Let us patiently, PRAYERFULLY, and by personal example urge a speedy rediscovery of God Focuses, God Centered Divine Worship.

Love and paayers,
Pat

 

[plefe]

Have you even stopped to consider what this “messing around” does to confuse and disrupt the prayer of those who don’t grasp what is going on with the rubricvs proper to the OF Mass they are attending. Self righteousness never trumps the proper way of doing things by the book.

These kinds of comments is just a continuation of perpetuating the obuses found in the OF. If we sit idley by without trying to project proper catechesis through every aspect of Catholicism and in every suttle but slow presentation of proper reverence, then those who have liberally fought to change the church have succeeded. The people sitting praying were confused when they woke up. Very few people understand the abuses we traditionalists speak of nore recognize them. We are not playing games or “messing with the OF.” This is serious and whatever God fearing action can be taken to set things right I applaud. Any effort that is made to project the once God fearing reverence that is no longer acceptable is warranted. My own efforts have not gone unseen, and my prayer to God everyday is to let ME be an example through quiet reverence and proper actions.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

 

[Ockham]

Had the Church kept the EF by now the churches probably would be empty. Besides there was the fear of going to hell for not attending Mass. About using the missal when attending the EF. But WHAT’s the purpose of it? The Word of God must be PROCLAIMED not read, people would have to buy a missal, be instructed on its use and remember to bring it to church…But what’s the point? Do we want to belong to an elite that can do these things? What about the millions and millions of Catholics who either can’t read or can’t be trained to use a missal…What about those people who live in missionary lands (now, practically all countries belong nin this category)…do the missionaries have to instruct them how to read the missal (and give them money to buy them). Isn’t it simple to follow the advice of Saint Paul who says that Faith comes from HEARING the message, not reading about. Doesn’t anyone knows that NOT EVEN THE MONKS (Trappists) in the US use Gregorian Chant and Latin?
I won’t revisit this topic any more. Jesus said “Go to all nations and TEACH…” I know that many will never change their way of thinking, but from the PASTORAL point of view I’m willing to cotinue with the OF even though I realize that there are MANY abuses which must be corrected.
Ed Infantge

• if the EF had continued churches would be empty is a completely absurd statement
• can you provide a source to confirm your assertion that missing Mass is not a mortal sin?
• there is nothing elitist about a missal. Most EFs I’ve been to provide them
• how do you think the Church’s missionaries were successful prior to the NO?
• leading clergy of the Church are calling for a return to Latin. V2 said it was to be retained