Was the Novus Ordo Missae really

[Ace86]

So, you have statistics for this? ALL the TLM Masses said at this time are free of “abuse”? Is this ridiculous claim verifiable?

Most people concur that the abuse that runs rampant today did not run rampant in the Rite that many Saints assisted at.

Perhaps you have discovered that “secret”…you know the one…there was a very orthodox bishop who discovered it, but was punished by the Curia. He discovered the secret documents the PROVE God created the TLM only so that the impeccable could get their sactification via rote response, and not have to mess with that conversion of heart thing. Come to think of it, many of my contacts with TLM affectionados reflects that “arrived” kind of piety - free of the contraints of humility and love of neighbor that calls out a sense of hope in the Mercy of God for even those who don’t “deserve” it…

From Fulfilling the Council: Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Traditionalist Movement by Michael P. Foley:

On the other hand, it is equally important for bishops, pastors, and liturgists who are inclined to view any attachment to “some previous liturgical . . . forms of the Latin tradition”20 as a de facto rejection of Vatican II to consider a startling irony. Not only is the Latin Mass not a repudiation of the liturgical principles of the Second Vatican Council, it may be one of the few places in their dioceses where they are actually being practiced.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Why does it carry his name? Do you really think he okay’d the Mass and didn’t even know it?

You’re not one of those who think Pope Paul VI was replaced with a double, are you??

So, you have statistics for this? ALL the TLM Masses said at this time are free of “abuse”? Is this ridiculous claim verifiable?

Perhaps you have discovered that “secret”…you know the one…there was a very orthodox bishop who discovered it, but was punished by the Curia. He discovered the secret documents the PROVE God created the TLM only so that the impeccable could get their sactification via rote response, and not have to mess with that conversion of heart thing. Come to think of it, many of my contacts with TLM affectionados reflects that “arrived” kind of piety - free of the contraints of humility and love of neighbor that calls out a sense of hope in the Mercy of God for even those who don’t “deserve” it…

Let me know when you’re actually ready to dialogue and not just avoid the discussion using sarcasm…

If you can’t even admit that abuses are running rampant in the post Vatican II Church there’s no discussion, you’re a fanatic (someone who won’t change their mind and can’t change the subject) and there’s nothing I can say or do that would change your mind. I would guess 99% of Catholics would agree liturgical abuses are much worse under the Novus Ordo than the TLM.

Frankly your disdain for the TLM and rejecting the rite that the Church developed and used for 1,500 years including the greatest Saints and Church doctors of the Catholic Church as “rote” responses, and TLM affecianados have nothing to do with conversion or the heart and they don’t love their neighbor is nothing short of appalling. I would expect as much from a protestant but not a professed Catholic.

 

[AJV]

I am a convert way after V2 and while I have no definitive answer to your question, there are many elements of protestant services in the NO.

Apart from Communion in the hand (because there are infinite threads on it), would you please mention some?

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Apart from Communion in the hand (because there are infinite threads on it), would you please mention some?

1. Priest facing the people instead of leading the people in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
2. Open Canon read
3. Service in the vernacular
4. “Lord’s Table” and no mention of the Sacrifce during Mass.

In fact every change Luther requested of the Mass 500 years ago has been implemented in the Novus Ordo Mass. It took a while but it got done. To me now Vatican II simply looks like copying what the Protestants did after the reformation.

 

[AJV]

1. Priest facing the people instead of leading the people in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

As I have said previously, the TLM can be celebrated in complete conformity with the rubrics versus populum.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9308/ellard3vj6.jpg
There was even earlier a mistaken notion that the Pope faced versus populum. When Pius VI went to Venice, the altar was shrouded and he celebrated versus populum.

1. Open Canon read

Really cannot see what is so wrong in it. Exceptional case for a particular reason, no doubt, but it is still done in the Traditional liturgy at ordinations

Luther didn’t want a Canon. Most Lutheran liturgies till today do not contain a Eucharistic Prayer.

1. Service in the vernacular

Not at all prohibited. There are many times in which the Mass has been allowed in other languages and for various reasons.

Pius XI himself allowed Estonian in the Mass because the bishops there told him people were going to Orthodox and Protestant churches because there services were in the vernacular.

1. “Lord’s Table” and no mention of the Sacrifice during Mass.

Not true. The word “Lord’s table” appears only the the GIRM 7 times if I’m not mistaken and I would encourage you if you haven’t done so to read all the times. Most of the time it is in relation only to communion. By contrast altar is used everywhere else and the GIRM even says that “at the altar the Sacrifice if the cross is made present” (you might want to look this up because I’m quoting form memory here so it may be slightly inexact). No Protestant will say that even in a preface.
Sacrifice appears in the Mass in many Prayer over the Gifts, in the In spiritu humilitatis, in the Orate Fratres, in the Eucharistic Prayer.

In fact every change Luther requested of the Mass 500 years ago has been implemented in the Novus Ordo Mass. It took a while but it got done. To me now Vatican II simply looks like copying what the Protestants did after the reformation.

No it hasn’t. Not by far. We still have a Eucharistic Prayer. We still have Secrets (renamed). We do not have the same Order that Luther last arranged his into. We do not administer the Sacrament immediately after the Verba Domini. And so on.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Not at all prohibited. There are many times in which the Mass has been allowed in other languages and for various reasons.

Pius XI himself allowed Estonian in the Mass because the bishops there told him people were going to Orthodox and Protestant churches because there services were in the vernacular.

*XXII Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON IX.–If any one saith…that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema.*

Just because the Protestant revision of the Holy Mass started prior to Vatican II doesn’t mean that facing the people was common or even licit. Mass in the Vulgar tongue DID happen but it was not anything other than a very very rare allowance. However it’s clear from history and tradition of countless Popes, Councils, and the magesterium that those that do it should be anathema.

Basically if you look at history, it’s simple, Catholics copied the protestants with the Novus Ordo (I think most people can admit that, since the prior liturgy was all but abandoned and replaced with a liturgy while still Catholic LARGELY reminiscant of a protestant service. If you go to a liturgical Lutheran service and Catholic Novus Ordo it becomes tough to actually see the differences (and I think we all know what Luther thought of the Holy Mass). It has been an absolute disaster on our faith most people can see that the experiment of adopting protestant worship into the Holy Mass has left our faith in a world of trouble, the statistics speak for themselves we’ve all seen them.

Trust me if you don’t think protestants talk about the victory over the Catholic Mass by Catholics adopting the Lord’s Table, service in the vernacular, canon readings, priest facing the people, in other words countless protestant adoptions post reformation. Like I said it took Luther quite a bit, but he got the changes he wanted in the Mass.

“With respect in the Eucharist, since it ought first and foremost to move one to the Faith, it is fitting that it be celebrated in the vernacular in order that all may comprehend the grandeur of God’s promise to man”.

"There is nothing more essential to the survival of the Catholic Church than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To play it down is to threaten the very foundation of Christ’s Church. The whole of Christian life, and the Priesthood, is founded upon the Cross, and upon the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of the Cross, upon the altar. "

-Martin Luther

 

[historyb]

and

Apart from Communion in the hand (because there are infinite threads on it), would you please mention some?

Hand holding, guiter playing, Charismatic stuff. The reverence I see from the TLM I have not seen with the NO. Even at the most reverent NO’s I been to pale next to the TLM in reverence imho.

It’s not hard to see the elements there.

 

[bear06]

XXII Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON IX.–If any one saith…that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema.

Just because the Protestant revision of the Holy Mass started prior to Vatican II doesn’t mean that facing the people was common or even licit. Mass in the Vulgar tongue DID happen but it was not anything other than a very very rare allowance. However it’s clear from history and tradition of countless Popes, Councils, and the magesterium that those that do it should be anathema.

Just one little point. Please note that it says vulgar tongue ONLY. I don’t think you’ll find too many people advocating for that on these forums. I, myself, prefer the Novus Ordo in Latin.

 

[SnorterLuster]

I have never been to a Protestant service except for marriages or funerals, so I have no first hand knowledge. But I do have a story.

My dad was a Lutheran who was raised in a small town in South Dakota. The two big religions in town were the Norwegian Lutherans and the German & Irish Catholics. Needless to say, back in the 50s there was not a lot of love between the two groups. Anyway, after the N.O. had been implemented in this town, I went up to visit my grandmother. My Lutheran cousin just delighted in telling me all about the new Catholic priest who had been having joint services with her Lutheran pastor. Appararently, one Sunday the Lutheran teens went to the Catholic Mass and the Catholic teens went to the Lutheran service. My cousin really enjoyed telling me that the Catholic Mass was almost exactly like the Lutheran service she was raised with. With a twinkle in her eye, she laughed that Luther won out after all.

 

[LilyM]

I have never been to a Protestant service except for marriages or funerals, so I have no first hand knowledge. But I do have a story.

My dad was a Lutheran who was raised in a small town in South Dakota. The two big religions in town were the Norwegian Lutherans and the German & Irish Catholics. Needless to say, back in the 50s there was not a lot of love between the two groups. Anyway, after the N.O. had been implemented in this town, I went up to visit my grandmother. My Lutheran cousin just delighted in telling me all about the new Catholic priest who had been having joint services with her Lutheran pastor. Appararently, one Sunday the Lutheran teens went to the Catholic Mass and the Catholic teens went to the Lutheran service. My cousin really enjoyed telling me that the Catholic Mass was almost exactly like the Lutheran service she was raised with. With a twinkle in her eye, she laughed that Luther won out after all.

And she was a totally impartial and unbiased observer, naturally

I’m sure if you took someone who was used to High Anglican services to a more traditional type of Novus Ordo, possibly even to the TLM, they’d probably similarly feel there wasn’t that much difference.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

I have never been to a Protestant service except for marriages or funerals, so I have no first hand knowledge. But I do have a story.

My dad was a Lutheran who was raised in a small town in South Dakota. The two big religions in town were the Norwegian Lutherans and the German & Irish Catholics. Needless to say, back in the 50s there was not a lot of love between the two groups. Anyway, after the N.O. had been implemented in this town, I went up to visit my grandmother. My Lutheran cousin just delighted in telling me all about the new Catholic priest who had been having joint services with her Lutheran pastor. Appararently, one Sunday the Lutheran teens went to the Catholic Mass and the Catholic teens went to the Lutheran service. My cousin really enjoyed telling me that the Catholic Mass was almost exactly like the Lutheran service she was raised with. With a twinkle in her eye, she laughed that Luther won out after all.

Like I have said here I was a lax Catholic until ~22 or so, I remember the Novus Ordo Mass well enough though having been to one many times. My current wife was baptized Catholic and raised Lutheran, I attended her Church for a while and had no problem with it because it seemed identical to the Mass I attended aside from the genuflecting. Of course there’s differences if one understands all the parts to the Mass but they weren’t big enough that an poorly catechized Catholic (although I went through years of CCD and thought myself pretty knowledgable) would notice.

I dare say that if the Catholic Church had just made these changes at Trent the entire reformation may have been to doctor the Church instead of have Luther and other reformists break away.

I mean really had the Church just declared at Trent that Mass can be said using open Canon, Mass in the vernacular, Priest facing the people, Lord’s Table instead of the current altar, no mention of the sacrifice of the Mass, I say the entire protestant reformation would’ve been halted and the most brought back into the fold then and there. So does this mean it’s innevitable the Catholic Church will allow female priests, ABC, divorce and remarriage etc… ? And when it happens will the mass of the Church militant defend the move? And if they do will they not question why not just do it when the protestants did it and save all the arguing and posturing over it? It seems our Church ends up conforming to the Protestants in the long run anyway.

 

[LilyM]

I dare say that if the Catholic Church had just made these changes at Trent the entire reformation may have been to doctor the Church instead of have Luther and other reformists break away.

I mean really had the Church just declared at Trent that Mass can be said using open Canon, Mass in the vernacular, Priest facing the people, Lord’s Table instead of the current altar, no mention of the sacrifice of the Mass, I say the entire protestant reformation would’ve been halted and the most brought back into the fold then and there. So does this mean it’s innevitable the Catholic Church will allow female priests, ABC, divorce and remarriage etc… ? And when it happens will the mass of the Church militant defend the move? And if they do will they not question why not just do it when the protestants did it and save all the arguing and posturing over it? It seems our Chrurch ends up conforming to the Protestants in the long run anyway.

Gimme a break - I’m sure an important reason why the Church DIDN’T do so at Trent was the intransigence of those Protestants who refused to attend. I don’t think Trent would have gone quite so far as the NO, and the Protestants did have issues with little things like the Papacy itself and probably wouldn’t have been appeased by changes in any event.

But I dare say the ‘Mass of the Ages’ would certainly have evolved into a reasonably different creature if they had attended - and I dare say we wouldn’t have lost a single one of the saints who celebrated or assisted at the TLM for four centuries afterwards as a result.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Gimme a break - I’m sure an important reason why the Church DIDN’T do so at Trent was the intransigence of those Protestants who refused to attend. I don’t think Trent would have gone quite so far as the NO, and the Protestants did have issues with little things like the Papacy itself and probably wouldn’t have been appeased by changes in any event.

But I dare say the ‘Mass of the Ages’ would certainly have evolved into a reasonably different creature if they had attended - and I dare say we wouldn’t have lost a single one of the saints who celebrated or assisted at the TLM for four centuries afterwards as a result.

O.K. so the reason why we didn’t just throw out our liturgy at Trent was over pride of being slighted by the protestants, not because it was the right thing to do? Well we threw it out anyway, albeit 500 years after the fact, but of course now the void has widened and it’s grown into a different animal, I mean Luther had a strong devotion to Mary, he wasn’t nearly as anti-Catholic as the majority of Protestantdom is now who won’t even mention Mary. So it’s not inconcievable that if the Church just tossed the litrugy and reformed it with the protestant changes which it did anyway that Luther and his ilk could’ve been brought back into the fold.

Mass of the ages? The Novus Ordo Mass would be unrecognizeable to any Catholic pre-Vatican II. You can’t call the Novus Ordo the “Mass of the ages”… Because aside from Catholics of the past 40 years no one from any other Catholic age would recognize it. You could swap a Lutheran or Anglican service for the Novus Ordo Mass and I bet 75% of Catholics wouldn’t even notice the difference now.

 

[LilyM]

O.K. so the reason why we didn’t just throw out our liturgy at Trent was over pride of being slighted by the protestants, not because it was the right thing to do? Well we threw it out anyway, albeit 500 years after the fact, but of course now the void has widened and it’s grown into a different animal, I mean Luther had a strong devotion to Mary, he wasn’t nearly as anti-Catholic as the majority of Protestantdom is now who won’t even mention Mary. So it’s not inconcievable that if the Church just tossed the litrugy and reformed it with the protestant changes which it did anyway that Luther and his ilk could’ve been brought back into the fold.

Mass of the ages? The Novus Ordo Mass would be unrecognizeable to any Catholic pre-Vatican II. You can’t call the Novus Ordo the “Mass of the ages”… Because aside from Catholics of the past 40 years no one from any other Catholic age would recognize it. You could swap a Lutheran or Anglican service for the Novus Ordo Mass and I bet 75% of Catholics wouldn’t even notice the difference now.

I (quite correctly) wasn’t talking about the Novus Ordo at all when I used the term ‘Mass of the Ages’ - I was speculating on what changes might have been made to the TLM at Trent if the Council had determined to go that route, which would have been more evolutionary than revolutionary.

Put it this way - I’ve seen more than enough TLMs and NOs to recognise a definite resemblance between the two - unlike any Lutheran or Anglican or other-denominational service I’ve witnessed. And the fact is the vast majority of those 75% of Catholics DO recognise the NO as distinctly Catholic, otherwise they wouldn’t bother attending it in preference to Anglican or Lutheran services. It’s not like most towns and cities don’t offer them the choice to do so if they wish.

More importantly, the CHURCH recognises the same Christ sacrificially present equally in both TLM and NO, as it does also in the various Eastern Catholic liturgies. For that matter, since it is my understanding that Catholics for our part are permitted by the Church to receive Orthodox Communion as well, we ALSO recognise it in the Orthodox liturgy and communion.

It’s a little puzzling to me why people get so worked up about the TLM when there are other equally valid liturgies around (thinking of the Eastern liturgies) that IMHO are more deeply rooted in the history of our Catholic faith, and for mine far more spiritually resonant as well.

Regardless, let me go on record as saying that since a substantial proportion of y’all do feel so attached to the TLM I am more than happy to fight alongside you to broaden its availabilty

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

The E.O. and other liturgies didn’t take every aspect of their liturgy from Protestant liturgies as the Novus Ordo did.

I’m sure if some liturgical changes were done to bridge the gap between the E.O. Churches and Rome people wouldn’t have been nearly as up in arms, but the fact that every change Luther requested of the Mass is now present in the Novus Ordo doesn’t sit well with me now.

As far as Catholics notice the Mass as uniquley Catholic or they wouldn’t attend isn’t true. I saw a lady reading her newspaper during Mass two Sunday’s ago, she is there merely because she’s culturally Catholic and not because she sees the Mass as “uniquely Catholic”, if she understood what the Mass is I highly doubt she would read a newspaper during Mass. She would be there if they disbanded the papacy tomorrow, or revoked the Marian dogmas.

The Novus Ordo… maybe it’s my Parish is tough to sit thorugh. Putrid hymns that NO ONE in my entire Parish sings, people read newspapers, dress in sweat pants, no one even says the required responses, those that do, do so in a barely audible whisper. Sitting through this for years has made me research how and why are Catholic services so void of anything that seems reverent or meaningful to the majority of lay Catholics? I mean most simply sit around like a donkey in a rainstorm until the Mass ends. I find my answer in the fact that the older Catholics feel absurd singing protestant hymns and engaging in a practically Lutheran service and the younger generation is taking their lead.

 

[rwoehmke]

Ahe Novus Ordo… maybe it’s my Parish is tough to sit thorugh. Putrid hymns that NO ONE in my entire Parish sings, people read newspapers, dress in sweat pants, no one even says the required responses, those that do, do so in a barely audible whisper. Sitting through this for years has made me research how and why are Catholic services so void of anything that seems reverent or meaningful to the majority of lay Catholics? I mean most simply sit around like a donkey in a rainstorm until the Mass ends. I find my answer in the fact that the older Catholics feel absurd singing protestant hymns and engaging in a practically Lutheran service and the younger generation is taking their lead.

As for the Bugnini Conspiracy, I have this large green troll that lives under my bed.
As to why Catholics are so apathetic at Mass these days, it is important to realize that many of them come because they inherited a habit from their parents who went because they really believed it was a serious sin to miss Sunday Mass; parents who also learned in Catholic schools what was going down at Mass. It is also a socially important thing to attend some church or another. You know it looks good and it is good for the kids. Lots of folks in the pews these days have no clue as to what is happening at Mass, the other 60plus percent don’t even bother to show up. Yes the Mass is in English now, but what percent are actually listening to and hearing the prayers. I dare say, not many. Until we wake up and understand that Paul VI was quite correct when he called for a New Evangelization and now we are talking not about unbelievers and protestants but about many of those who occupy a pew in our churches on Sunday.

It also sounds to me on reading this thread that some are saying the Holy Spirit was on vacation when Paul VI was pope. Excuse me? Es is verschamt!

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

Please be careful not to use derogatory slang (e.g., Prots, fundies, etc.).

 

[LilyM]

Note:

Please be careful not to use derogatory slang (e.g., Prots, fundies, etc.).

My apologies. I was merely using it as abbreviation, didn’t realise it was considered offensive Mind you, some have issue with the use of the term Protestant itself.

I’ll take a slap on the wrist though, and write out ‘I mustn’t abbreviate the word Protestant’ 100 times by tomorrow

 

[AJV]

Like I have said here I was a lax Catholic until ~22 or so, I remember the Novus Ordo Mass well enough though having been to one many times. … It seems our Church ends up conforming to the Protestants in the long run anyway.

In the first place the differences between the Mass and the Lutheran service are enormous. I challenge anyone here ot pick up a Lutheran hymnal and compare the two.

It is NOT “practically Lutheran” and it is NOT everything that Luther wanted. It is FAR from it. I encourage you to prove that it is what Luther wanted. Go throguh every single change he demanded including the abolition of the Canon, his removal of the entire Offertory including what was the ancient Roman Offertory the Secret, and compare it to the NO.

And as I pointed out, there are instances of sacrifice in the Mass. In the Prayers Over the Gifts often, when the priest bows and says in ICELese “Lord God we ask you to receive us…” when he says “Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours (in the USur)…” in the Eucharistic Prayer. Moreover the GIRM (evn in the 1969 version) makes so many references to sacrifice that would clearly put the Mass out of anything Luther wanted. Do you really think he could agree to something like this:

Offering: By which, in this very memorial, the Church—and in particular the Church here and now gathered—offers in the Holy Spirit the spotless Victim to the Father.

I can well imagine him sitting and writing against this in a nice illustrated book with the word “abomination” featuring prominently.

I can truely see what you mean with regard to your parish: and it can really turn into a spritually unfullfilling exercise. But that does not mean that the problem is directly with the Mass…I mean, there are always those who attend Mass and have attended Mass because they hold themselves to be Catholic. If the lady could be so lackadasical and disrespectful at the NO, I can imagine her at a TLM where one requires a deeper level of particpation and contemplation. For all you know, being “culturally Catholic” or whatever, she might just be there only in her pew, maybe not reading a newspaper, maybe doing so, I don’t know, but she wouldn’t get much benefit out of whichever Mass she attends.

Externals I agree are really important, but I always feel that is something more. Sicne I don’t have time now (and significantly less resources since I only have the Internet to work with) perhaps you could research the “Red Book” of Sweden- a Lutheran liturgy that has a great resemblence to the TLM. Totally independant but Luther himself in Wittenburg celebrated his revised liturgy at the high altar ad orientum, offered communion under one kind only at the altar (both kinds being at the side altars), and for a time retained so many of the outward facets of the TLM. And surely at that time there was even greater possibility of confusion because of the way the TLM is recited sotto voce, etc. If the main manual actions are retained, especially in an age where people don’t have missals and all, who’s going to know the difference? But there IS a difference.

Secondly, the is the little issue of the revisions of the Protestant litrugies under the influence of THEIR liturgical movement. And sometimes the changes have taken their worship in such a direction that it can be so close to ours-but that is not the fault of the NO. For example: the Anglcian Church of England has as an option in its auxiliary book Common Worship (the main one being the BCP 1662) “Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and the response “Lord, I am not worthy” which can be said in “traditional language” namely “come under my roof, etc.” or contemporary language. Now, if one wanders into such a service it does indeed seem the same. But the important difference is that (aside from the fact that this was done waay after the NO) that they have replaced the qualifier statement “This is” (ICEL) with “Jesus” that totally changes the interpretation and the meaning of the response.

It is not also as if the liturgically minded Protestants are only borrowing from the Catholics. They are also borrowing form the Eastern liturgies. Litanies, invitations to communion, so many are all there.

There has moreover, been a little shift in Protestant thinking as it is. Ritual in certain parts is widely accepted. Some of even changed their stances doctrinally (the US branch of the Anglicans on prayers for the dead). One more exmaple: open up a 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and turn to the section marked “Eucharist for special occasions” and look under the one marked “The Holy Eucharist”. Then turn to your Traditional Missal and look under Votive Mass of the Most Blessed Sacrament and compare the collect and the selection of readings. It is the same! Does that mean that the Anglicans now share the same Eucharistic belief as do/did Traditional Catholics (actually any Catholic)?

 

[lak611]

I’m sure if some liturgical changes were done to bridge the gap between the E.O. Churches and Rome people wouldn’t have been nearly as up in arms, but the fact that every change Luther requested of the Mass is now present in the Novus Ordo doesn’t sit well with me now.

As far as Catholics notice the Mass as uniquley Catholic or they wouldn’t attend isn’t true. I saw a lady reading her newspaper during Mass two Sunday’s ago, she is there merely because she’s culturally Catholic and not because she sees the Mass as “uniquely Catholic”, if she understood what the Mass is I highly doubt she would read a newspaper during Mass. She would be there if they disbanded the papacy tomorrow, or revoked the Marian dogmas.

Maybe the woman with the newspaper isn’t even Catholic. She could be there just because her husband is Catholic and she’s going along.

By the way, the Mass itself has no relation to somebody reading a newspaper (even if she is an irreverant Catholic). That’s just her, not the Mass. I have been to Lutheran services and never saw anybody reading papers during the service, so if we’re being copycats, why don’t the Lutherans do that?