The surprising and shocking thing, that needs to be talked about is how often words solemnly declared sacred and holy, are so often changed.

As they are being changed once again, now.

The very worst "bad liturgical habit" every Catholic needs to resist is a lack of spiritual recollection at Mass. When at Mass we are made present at the one stunning act of sacrificial love and mercy the sheer magnitude and magnanimous nature of which can only be accomplished by God Who is love and Who is also Man -- one of us. If we lose sight of that we risk becoming only another member of the noisy, indifferent crowd present at the crucifixion. If they aren't noisy in the sense that they are chatting with others, their minds are filled with noise -- their thoughts aren't focused on the profound significance of the event at which they are present. Many are indifferent in that they see what is happening as just another Roman crucifixion -- being there is not a particularly significant experience for them.

If we aren't spiritually recollected at Mass we become just another member of the noisy, indifferent crowd, only vaguely aware, if aware at all, of the significance of what is happening as the God-Man agonizes for our sake. Those for whom being there is the significant experience it is meant to be, I think, can't help but respond to the love and mercy being shown them by caring for the One who cared for them – caring for Him in His least brothers and sisters. They will one day find themselves on His right hand.

I think those who are indifferent, noisy members of the crowd risk ending up among those on the left hand of Christ of whom He will then say, "I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. ..." Since they never paid attention when they were truly present at the crucifixion of Christ when they attended Mass, they didn't respond the way those on His right hand did. Check out Matthew 25:32-46 to see what happens to these folks.

It's an interesting list of changes suggested here, but the thing they highlight is that the experience of going to Mass is quite largely shaped by cultural practices that have nothing to do with what is written in the liturgical books. Just as Weigel thinks that the Mass would be corrected and improved by the kinds of changes he suggests, many others would find these changes disruptive and perhaps even destructive of their parish's "way of doing Mass." And some people really just don't appreciate solemnity as a part of the liturgy - they feel it's stodgy or off-putting.

I would agree with Weigel's list of reforms, particularly the one about welcoming silence into the liturgy, but cultural changes are much more difficult to bring about than the written word. I do think many people would actually come to understand some of these changes and welcome them if they would give them the chance, but I wouldn't hold my breath. People are creatures of habit and very few people really like change.

Fr. Z, he of the very popular blog called "What does the Prayer Really Say" has the most helpful way of trying to encourage a re-appropriation of liturgical beauty and solemnity. "Brick by brick" is his mantra. Don't worry about changing everything overnight. Just build upon the small things you can do rather than get frustrated and upset with the things you can't change.

I'm glad someone else hates the remark "the responsorial psalm is..." when it so clearly is not. Further gripes: why do priests greet us properly (The Lord be with you) and then say "Good morning"? A worse one: why are there too many priests who, after receiving the response "And also with you" (gratefully soon to change), answer "Thank you." What could any of them think they are thanking us for? I don't expect an immediate change in people's reactions to Mass but I do hope that, with time, the heightened and more beautiful language will seep in and alter our hearts.

Discussing bad liturgical habits is the Catholic equivalent of sports talk radio... an endless litany of heated observations. When did the practice of applause for the choir and musicians at the conclusion of Mass get started?

I think it is terrible when the priest starts the Mass with "good morning" and concludes it with "have a nice day". With such mundane secular statements it totally takes us out of the sacred atmosphere that the liturgy is to invoke. The purpose of the liturgy is to bring us to a higher world.

I think of the points listed above as "banality creep." Like Mr. Weigel mentioned, the Mass is the highest and most important event we will participate in, and we must resist the tendency to dampen its solemnity and impact.

The most shocking example of this, one that I just saw yesterday, is the introduction of a motorized hand sanitizing station mounted on a pole right next to the tabernacle (located to the left of the altar). I sat there gape-mouthed while Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist marched up, got their squirt of sanitizer, and wrung their hands during the fraction rite. This silliness, along with other things, is the reason I am no longer a regular visitor to that parish.

Can someone answer the question, is it permitted to omit the washing of hands during the week day mass? This is being done on a regular basis by several area priests.

Best way to avoid all of this? Go assist at Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite!

There is no need to announce the hymns, if the page number is listed the parish program. And NEVER: "Please join in singing hymn ------- (followed by a quotation of the opening verse). And pastors would do all a favor by removing :song Leaders" with their wafting arms from the Liturgy.

Several added items to the list of bad habits:
-Proper vesting for every Mass, not just Sunday.
-Using a real chalice, and not a glass or ceramic "cup".
-Omitting the word men from the Creed.
-Changing the wording of Eucharistic prayers.
-Stop avoid using the First Echaristic prayer, like it is the plague.
-Stop making silly hand gestures during Mass that are not called for in the Missal.

I sincerely hope that music gets reformed next. The practice of breaking up prayers (such as the Gloria) into a refrain with verses needs to go. Only the cantor or choir sings all of the words, while those in the pews only get to keep repeating something over and over. The best way to make prayer an internalized part of oneself is to say or sing it as a prayer, and not arranged like a pop tune.

I have experienced and fully expect to continue to experience all of these "bad habits" as you say because my Pastor prefers them. I just don't see them going away to ANY degree in the NO. I am absolutely convinced that the NO can be celebrated with reverence and orthodoxy. Unfortunately, I am in the minority at my Parish. These items here coupled with many worse items moved me from this Parish to a EF Mass that is much farther away but much more reverent (ahh... blessed silence after communion rather than blaring "Bread of Life....") EF structure just does NOT lend itself to these "bad habits...".

Bishops and Priests and Laity MUST follow GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal). It can be found on the USCCB web site and includes Litergy and Behavior.
Nothing else is permitted.
If your Priest (who is in charge) allows violations, talk to him privately. If it continues, contact your Diocese Bishop. If that does not work, write to the Vatican.
We must stop the abuses at Mass.

Additional bad habits to break:
1) Open the songbooks and sing! (Perhaps the new liturgy's song settings won't be set so only sopranoes and high tenors can finish a whole verse.) Those song introductions from liturgists Bill despises are in part an attempt to raise more than the sound of crickets from the pews.

2)There is of course a place for silence and reverence in the Mass. There also needs to be a place for families with young children to attend Mass. In some parishes thankfully a balance is struck with a family Mass time where there is a dearth of glowering scowls at parents trying to shush young children after Communion. We want them to be silent at the appropriate times, too, and we're trying to teach them. However, Catholics aren't born properly behaving in Mass. ("Suffer the little children" indeed, some days.) Pray for us parents; we need it, and so do our kids.

3) I applaud Weigel's #5. Tell the congregations during church about the new liturgy and its proper practice. When the GIRM revisions came out (2003?) our pastor did this and took sermon time over several weeks to explain, for example, the new times of silence and bowing, and the motivations behind these practices. It was invaluable, especially for people who don't participate much in parish life beyond Mass itself. Surveys that show how few Catholics are aware of the new coming liturgy demonstrate the need for practical teaching on these matters during the Mass time: many will simply have no idea of what they're supposed to be doing differently until taught.

George,

I am also annoyed by the readers who believe it is their role to perform, to maintain eye contact, to dramatically pause, and forth. Just put your head down and read, I say.

There is one lady who recites the prayer of the faithful at St. Agnes in Arlington who adds her own special inflection on "We pray to the Lord." She says, "WE (pause) pray to the Lord." I don't know why we don't emphasize TO or THE but that's just me

Is this anything more than a bunch of cranky, aesthetic complaints that boil down to little more significant than not liking the way your neighbor has cut his lawn or decorated his Christmas tree? It really only gets worse as these comments go on, as though the whole Roman Rite depends on whether the hymn numbers are announced or not. What we see here is an arrested and juvenile effort to create a monochromatic world where everyone does exactly as he is told. This is interesting, so far as the Fathers of the Council told us that, "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community." How much of what is above really meets the standard of matters that "implicate the faith or the good of the whole community"? Be honest.

One (irrelevant and probably boring) side note: on occasion my Presbyterian wife joins me for mass at the Catholic parish I attend. She has some troubling following long since she hasn’t been attending mass like I have for the last 40 years. I show her the portion of the hymn book which lists the mass progression, but it’s hard to follow. Starting this Advent I’ll no longer be able to go totally from memory. We will both have to read along. For us, I guess the new translation will be the great equalizer.

Maybe it’s good to shake me out of the way I’ve been doing it for four decades. I do wonder how long it will take me to memorize the new translation, or if I’ll be able to at all given my advancing years. I hope the print is big enough to read.

So when will they get rid of the atrocious "dynamically barely equivalent" translation of the Bible that's used at mass?

\\Abaccio says:
Best way to avoid all of this? Go assist at Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite!\\

Even better way, Abaccio: Attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Holy Baradak, or Qorbono at your local Eastern Catholic Church.

After attending the Latin Mass for almost a year now, I made the mistake of going to a Novus Ordo Mass last Sunday. Despite the fact that the new translation was used, there was nothing dignified, reverential or worshipful about this Mass. Reinstating the Tridentine Mass as the main Mass in each parish is what needs to be done over time, and hopefully people will see what an absolute travesty the Novus Ordo is. We need to stop seeing the Mass as a dialogue between us and the priest. It is a sacrifice and nothing drives this point home as the Latin Mass does.

Responding to Lydia: even among those who treasure the venerable Latin rite many (clergy and laity alike) seem unable to identify the four moments of the Mass which constitute it as the Divine Sacrifice, let alone able to make correlation of these with the historical Redemption. If I'm correct in thinking the hyperlinks on names here are functional, I'd be happy to forward a brief essay on this topic to any who might request it.

Sir,

You might append a comment of clarification onto the "Responsorial Psalm" paragraph where we are reminded that the Responsorial is the lesser alternative to the more laudable intoned Gradual.

It is also worth mentioning that the antiphon chant after the second lesson (if present and also the third and fourth lessons also when present), previous to the Gospel has almost entirely vanished outside of papal-style Ordinary Form where the celebration and sacrifice are carried out directed toward the other (rather than inward).

Postscript: The music at everyday Mass has become worse and worse. Things are really starting to become completely butchered. I don't know why they insist on doing it. We really don't need a troupe of lay para-choirmonks consisting of formerly raven-haired jazz junkies jamming out on their claranets and a burlesque piano repeatedly saying "Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God, in the Highest" ninety-nine times to every other line of the sacred psalm.... Don't even get me started on the supplication "Lamb of God". I honestly can't make out a word they are saying.... I am pretty sure it's not English and I certainly know it is not Latin (as I can recite here-and-there portions of the Mass in Latin from memory, both priestly and of the faithful).

+++

@Notottaviani

Friend, you may see it as trivial and perhaps juvenile.

I suspect you do cry yourself to sleep. For me... and I suspect I am not alone.

Going to holy Mass is a substantial challenge. It is like walking into darkness.

The best part of holy Mass is when it is over. At least then I can take the sacred texts of the holy Mass and recite faithfully them sitting at my table, and then listening to the recorded propers appropriate to the Ordinary Form whilst looking out my window, while eating my dinner.

Hello George,

This is an excellent list, and an excellent starting place for restoring reverence and solemnity to the mass. Matthew M is right in suggesting that all of these phenomenon fall under the rubric of "banality creep." For too long, too many priests have assumed that banality is necessary to connect with ever-more secularized, sophisticated Catholics in the pews. Instead, it's been driving them away. The numbers speak for themselves.

There are already folks coming along to suggest that this just scrapes the surface, that the real problem is with the Novus Order, or Ordinary Form, deeply flawed through and through, lock stock and barrel. And to be sure, there are more fundamental problems, and they go well beyond the (now much improved translation), as the Holy Father himself has noted on past occasions. But Rome was not rebuilt in a day. For the foreseeable future, the great majority of Catholics will only have access to the mass in the Ordinary Form. The traditional mass will continue (God willing) to proliferate, and will exercise growing influence on the ars celebrandi of the OF, especially in regards to younger priests. What we can do for now is try to restore the celebration of the Ordinary Form, bit by bit.

It will be hard enough to even achieve your list, but there are signs of it happening already - especially (again) where it's a younger priest. Beyond that? We could reduce the relentless proliferation of Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist, which are no longer extraordinary at all but instead are regularly used to "get as many layfolk into the sanctuary doing stuff" rather than helping out when clerics are so overwhelmed with communicants that mass threatens to be extended for an unreasonable time frame. The music of the mass is infamously banal as well; more use of chant, or (if they must be used) more traditional hymns would help here. We could restore a bit of Latin, at least to the fixed prayers. More dramatically, we could consider restoring as the norm the celebration of the canon of the mass ad orientem, so that we are all facing the Lord together, rather than a closed circle with a strong temptation to "perform" for the congregation. And perhaps we might even consider restoring reception on the tongue as the norm, and thus go a long way to restoring belief in the Real Presence. And, in the long run - perhaps a more thorough reform of the OF/N.O. to something more closely approximating what the Council actually called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

None of that will be easy, but it is no longer unthinkable. The new translation is the first big step in that very long journey.

I like your list of 5 examples. I'm sure you could add a few more.

One I'd add is the practice of holding hands during the Our Father, or lifting them up in the air, or using the outspread hands (orans) posture that should be reserved for the celebrant(s). The proper use of the hands in prayer is to place the palms together with the fingers extended upward.

Why are we embarrassed to show reverence when we pray?

...This is also the perfect time to cease and desist from the horrid practice whereby members of the congregation alter the texts to suit their own ill-conceived sensitivities, mainly by avoiding masculine language for God. If one cannot bring herself to recite the provided response, then the only acceptable alternative is silence. TO DISRUPT THE ASSEMBLY'S PRAYER AND DIVIDE THE CONGREGATION BY SPEAKING OVER EVERYONE WITH ONE'S PERSONALLY DEVISED SUBSTITUTE PHRASE IS GROSSLY CONTRARY TO THE VERY SPIRIT OF LITURGY, WHICH GATHER'S GOD'S PEOPLE TOGETHER TO WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH. Pastors of souls should have denounced it long ago; now it is high time.

The reason I am a Roman Catholic is not because, as a liturgy consumer, I have discerned the form of Mass in the Western Rite Catholic to be better than any of the other liturgies on offer by competitor Christian sects (or the liturgies advertised by Jack as on offer at our "local Eastern Rite Catholic church"), but because Jesus commissioned only one Church and that church is the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome. I will leave up to that Church which liturgy it wants offered at my local Western Catholic Church and try my best to participate in that Mass as well as I can.

I do like what Richard M said about more Latin hymns, but my pastor is a relatively young priest who began going to Mass about the time English replaced Latin. He has not shown much interest in Latin hymns, so I will endure the mainly Protestant hymns we've retreaded whenever I am at my home parish for Mass (boy do I love it when we sing a Marian hymn or end Mass with "Holy God, we Praise Thy Name"). I am at my home parish most weeks (maybe 46 out of 52 weeks a year) and would not consider parish-shopping just to get liturgy or music more to my taste. Christ commissioned His Church to preach the Good News to all the World and the Church sensibly has approached the task on a territorial basis. So, if the Church in my town approaches liturgy the way it does because that is what the pastor charged with the cure of my soul has chosen, that's "good enough for me" (to quote a Protestant hymn, of all things).

"We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church." (Fr Louis Boyer, following the reforms of Vatican II).

I would urge all Catholics to read The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber, and The Roman Rite Destroyed by Michael Davies. There's more at stake than just aesthetics (which actually do count, by the way). Jim is right - the Novus Ordo is like darkness. It is the darkness of apathy and acedia that have spread throughout the church, aided by the new liturgy in its appalling, insipid, and vapid attempts to be 'relevant' to modern man. We underestimate the deleterious effects that the loss of sacrality in the liturgy has on our souls.

Fr Francis, thanks for the offer of the essay. However, I don't think the hyperlinks lead to anything.

Patrick,
There are a few things I wish to say in response to your comment.
First, it's great that your faith and your commitment to the Church are not compromised by poor liturgy. However, there are a few questions that always go through my mind whenever I attend a (mostly poor) Novus Ordo Mass.
1. What effect does this Mass have on young souls? That is, on children, teenagers, young adults, new converts, etc. Does this help them to turn their hearts and minds to God, and grow in prayerfulness and knowledge of God's holiness or does it drive them to distraction and ultimately out of the Church?
2. Does this liturgy have the power to convert? One of the most effective ways of introducing someone to your faith is to take them to church. I would not introduce anyone to most of the Novus Ordo parishes I have been to. I have read many accounts written by converts who were converted by the beauty of an ancient liturgy, my husband included. Outer forms reveal inward truths.
3. Most importantly: is this worship pleasing to God? Does this honor Him and reflect his character and the heavenly worship that occurs continuously around the throne of our almighty God? Or does it reflect the lowest common denominator of modern Western culture?

But WHERE are the new missals? Promises, promises!

There is a lot of evil talk in this forum. I think there is one word which is necessary in regard to the Liturgy (as defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium):

Obedience.

To obey is to love God.

Everything else is of the spirit of disobedience - which is from evil / fallen angels.

Presuming myself to be guilty of "evil talk in this forum," I come in search of charitable correction.

How is accessibility banal? How is understandability contrary to the spirit of liturgical communion? How is unreflective obedience the mark of the sons and daughters called to gather around the altar? How is variation according to local customs and needs evil?

In great honesty, I believe and hope that anyone who calls himself Catholic holds great reverence for what liturgy is. That's true of me. But I have a hard time understanding why we need to sit and pay attention like good Catholic school children--silently, with good posture, under the threat of approbation or punishment--in order to join the worship of the Church.

All we've really seen here is a kind of uncharitable crankiness, an impatience with your neighbors and their peculiarities that seems to me more incongruent with Christian worship than prefacing the antiphon or offering a kind word during the sharing of the peace.

People are different. We are called together at Mass across our differences to overlook those differences and join in communal worship.

Or, to put it in language that may gain better understanding in this company: De gustibus non disputandum est.

Speaking of the Sign of Peace, should you greet your family first and then those around you? I find that the Sign of Peace becomes a love fest between family members and they get to those around them quite late. In my family we give a quick handshake and then turn to those around us. It does not help when greeters go up and down the aisle shaking hands either.

I have a love /hate relationship with an article like this - I love the fact all of this is being observed and talked about and I hate the fact that it is actually happening. Might I add that when singing the Mass, announcements of the hymn numbers is totally disruptive to the praying of the mass. PLEASE STOP. If anyone is going to sing the hymns -- they will see the hymn numbers on the board. Those who dont sing the hymns WILL NOT SING ANYWAY. My experiebce is that those who cant read the hymn numbers oughttos move closer. And those in the back and cant read them dont care to read them.

Linda asks:
"2. Does this liturgy have the power to convert? One of the most effective ways of introducing someone to your faith is to take them to church. I would not introduce anyone to most of the Novus Ordo parishes I have been to. I have read many accounts written by converts who were converted by the beauty of an ancient liturgy, my husband included. Outer forms reveal inward truths.
3. Most importantly: is this worship pleasing to God? Does this honor Him and reflect his character and the heavenly worship that occurs continuously around the throne of our almighty God?"

Does the current Catholic liturgy have the power to convert? I don't know whether it is the liturgy or something else (e.g., preaching, catechesis, grace), but I would imagine that, over the past 10, 20 and 50 years, the Catholic Church loyal to the Pope and saying the current liturgy has converted many times the number of people that Latin Mass devotees have converted. None of which is to say that I wouldn't welcome more Latin in the Mass, but the important thing is to remain in full communion with the Holy See of Rome. Any number of people come along with purported improvements on the faith delivered to the Apostles, but I haven't read the names of anyone from the 21st Century in the Holy Bible, so I will hew closely to those in apostolic succession from the Apostles as 2 Tim:1 et seq. teaches me to do. Irenaeus put it so well in Adversus Haereses 3:3:2.

As to whether the current liturgy is pleasing to God? That is way above my pay grade.

>>As to whether the current liturgy is pleasing to God? That is way above my pay grade.

Isn't the most reasonable answer that God is pleased by those who want sincerely to please Him?

Since God needs nothing of our worship (being sufficient Himself), I doubt very much He tallies a quota of Confiteors and Credos.

This is not to say the form of our worship is irrelevant. The form of worship should reflect the reverence and sincerity of the people who worship. But, again, this can admit to significant variation to express how many different people love and praise God. Seen this way, isn't the emphasis on precision and uniformity in our worship foolishly pharisaical?

Let's add to the list of items to be corrected: when the priest says, "The Lord be with you," and extends his hands, it is not appropriate for the congregation to extend their hands in their response, as though it were a hand-wave of sorts.

"Is this anything more than a bunch of cranky, aesthetic complaints that boil down to little more significant than not liking the way your neighbor has cut his lawn or decorated his Christmas tree?"

Yes. It is discussion about the proper way to worship God.

That is all.

Worshipping God in the Divine Liturgy is not supposed to be the same as worshipping a group of musicians at a rock concert. It's almost as if the girls who worshipped John, Paul, George, and Ringo started devising how the Mass should be prayed and celebrated. We have very good examples of how God wants to be worshipped. We need only read His word and we know. The Mass is essentially praying and living out the Bible. God clearly wants to be worshipped in solemn and reverent ways. The saints and angels in Heaven that we see in Revelations are not doing their own thing, they are doing God's thing. He has passed on to us His ways through His bride, the Church. It's pretty simple stuff, Holy Mother Church has given us the means to worship God in a way He sees fit. Altering that for one's personal tastes, or even the tastes of others takes a whole lot of nerve. Lift up God with solemn and sacred words and prayers at Mass and He will lift you even higher.

>>It is discussion about the proper way to worship God.

Does worshiping God with solemnity and reverence hinge on whether the antiphon is prefaced? Are we certain that God is so peevish as the people here seem to be?

>>It's almost as if the girls who worshipped John, Paul, George, and Ringo started devising how the Mass should be prayed and celebrated.

Actually, those 'girls' were H.E. Albert Cardinal Meyer, H.E. Francis Cardinal Spellman, H.E. Richard Cardinal Cushing, and hundreds of other Fathers of the Council, acting collegially in communion with the Bishop of Rome, exercising the extraordinary universal magisterium of the Church to say that, "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community."

>>The saints and angels in Heaven that we see in Revelations are not doing their own thing, they are doing God's thing. He has passed on to us His ways through His bride, the Church. It's pretty simple stuff, Holy Mother Church has given us the means to worship God in a way He sees fit.

Who is talking about 'doing their own thing,' as though we were running a rock concert? We're talking about the Mass, varied and adapted to local needs and conditions, but still the Mass, reverent and solemn because the people gathered to worship intend their worship to be reverent and solemn...even if it is not your taste.

Can someone please, finally, address the central question: Why should the Mass be measured according to a rigid uniformity that quite plainly does not express the will of an ecumenical council? That is to say, why is it so unacceptable to permit variations and adaptations that express the sincere desire of a people to worship in the Mass as Holy Mother Church has given it to us, through the actions of the Council Fathers in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Notottaviani,

You are correct that the council fathers acted "collegially in communion with the Bishop of Rome, exercising the extraordinary universal magisterium of the Church." The problem is that the Novus Ordo deviates wildly from what they put forth in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium).

Just 3 of the most obvious examples:

"the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.1)

"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (116)

"Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority" (22.3)

>>We are called together at Mass across our differences to overlook those differences and join in communal worship.

Communal worship is not limited to just those gathered together in one place today, but includes all the faithful across time and space. It is the Novus Ordo that has broken from the common worship of peoples around the world over hundreds of years.

>>Why should the Mass be measured according to a rigid uniformity that quite plainly does not express the will of an ecumenical council? That is to say, why is it so unacceptable to permit variations and adaptations that express the sincere desire of a people to worship in the Mass as Holy Mother Church has given it to us, through the actions of the Council Fathers in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

You have repeatedly quoted this bit about "rigid uniformity," while conveniently leaving out the rest of the paragraph. Here it is, in full:

"Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit" (37)

The idea being that the Church does allow for adaptations, but not commonly, and only after careful consideration. This is stated much more explicitly earlier in the document:

"there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing" (23)

We see here that innovations to the liturgy are only to be introduced when absolutely necessary. It is laughable to suggest that the NO is an organic development of a pre-existing form. Rather, it is a complete break from the past.

>>It's almost as if the girls who worshipped John, Paul, George, and Ringo started devising how the Mass should be prayed and celebrated.

Actually, those 'girls' were H.E. Albert Cardinal Meyer, H.E. Francis Cardinal Spellman, H.E. Richard Cardinal Cushing, and hundreds of other Fathers of the Council, acting collegially in communion with the Bishop of Rome, exercising the extraordinary universal magisterium of the Church to say that, "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community." >>It's almost as if the girls who worshipped John, Paul, George, and Ringo started devising how the Mass should be prayed and celebrated.
____

Ah, but those girls ARE in my parish, and have a say in how my parish does things. They practically ran it before my current pastor arrived.
____

>>The saints and angels in Heaven that we see in Revelations are not doing their own thing, they are doing God's thing. He has passed on to us His ways through His bride, the Church. It's pretty simple stuff, Holy Mother Church has given us the means to worship God in a way He sees fit.

Who is talking about 'doing their own thing,' as though we were running a rock concert? We're talking about the Mass, varied and adapted to local needs and conditions, but still the Mass, reverent and solemn because the people gathered to worship intend their worship to be reverent and solemn...even if it is not your taste.
_____

Well, quite frankly, when the monsignor at my parish adds in his own greetings, his own minor changes to Eucharist prayers, and his own communion prayers ("May the Body and Blood of Christ bring US to ever lasting life ", which he actually takes from the EF Mass, translates it to English, and uses it despite it not being in the OF Mass!), he is making changes that he sees fit, but which he has no right to make. Again, it's pretty simple. He has the words in front of him, and he has no right to change them. What's wrong with that? Does he not trust the Church to gift to him a Mass pleasing to God? My pastor does not add anything, and when he celebrates the Mass you get the sense that it is more eternal, more sacred. You get the sense it is God’s Mass, not Father So-and-so’s Mass. My pastor will use incense and Latin prayers (Anges Dei anybody?), the monsignor does not. I love the monsignor, he is elderly and retired, but still helps out and is a wonderful man who clearly loves the Lord (and he went to school with my dad's older sister!). But he is wrong to do the Mass his way and not Mother Church's way, even if those changes seem minor. The monsignor came of age as a priest around the times the Mass changed.

In the end, isn't the Church supposed to change cultures, not follow them? The Mass should change and lift up our society and culture, not be lowered so as to make folks comfortable. Folks should be in awe of the Mass, but they are not. The changes that are coming are a step in the right direction to bring back that awe. I pray more come after.

And one other thing, why do folks make such a huge deal of the sign of peace? We are called to do so with the folks to our left and right, not 3 rows in front and 10 people to the left. There are often still people shaking hands when the Lamb of God has begun. Silly nonsense. Same thing goes for bringing up kids for blessings. They get their blessing at the end of Mass, and this is what Rome tries to remind us. Oh, and holding hands during the Our Father, it seems to me, greatly reduces the significance of the sign of peace that follows. You just held the man's hand, why bother now shaking it? Holding someone's hand is much more intimate than shaking it. The shaking afterwards seems almost trite. Maybe these things are why it is almost impossible for me to pray quietly AFTER Mass in the church. Folks just hang around and talk so loud I can’t think, let alone spend quiet time with the Lord. All the nonsense that takes place prior is what leads folks to think it’s no big deal to chat in the church as though they were in the school cafeteria. There is NO reverance for the Blessed Sacrament, none whatsoever. And yet that is quite understandable because the Mass that just took place does not give them any sense that the Sacrament is so special and blessed.

Many thanks to DP for taking up the offer of a conversation!

Now, several points need to be explored:

1) You're quite right about communal worship, but we are required to engage in some creative thinking to imagine our way into what that means for its application in liturgy. When "all the faithful across time and space" are gathered around the altar, why is that important? It is because we all are joined in the worship of the Church, yes. But what does that mean? Does it mean we exclude "all the faithful across time and space" if we do not use Latin? If we do not use the Greek that was used in liturgy before Latin? If we do not use their vernacular language, since most would have no idea about Greek or Latin? Or, even more concretely, do we fail to include them "because the Novus Ordo...has broken from the common worship of peoples around the world over hundreds of years"? How? By offering a kind word during the sharing of the peace? By prefacing the antiphon or announcing the hymn numbers? Are these the things that exclude the universal community of believers? Conversely, were they excluding us hundreds of years ago because they did things differently? I genuinely don't think these questions are ridiculous once we begin to have the conversation this way, because they raise quite specifically the pertinent issue: what do we owe the communion of saints through the liturgy? But I guess where I become skeptical is where be begin treating that debt like a checklist that must be ticked off Mass by Mass, parish by parish, as though the human community gathered around the altar in the temporal sphere matters less than the communion of saints. They must be equally valuable, it seems to me. To resolve the problem, I would propose that, just as God has no need of our worship (being Himself sufficient) it is our intention to worship Him that pleases Him, our intention to join the communion of saints around the altar and to participate in Mass that is more essential to convoking that gathering than rigidly prescribing how the Psalm may be introduced.

2) You have said that, "innovations to the liturgy are only to be introduced when absolutely necessary." This addresses, I presume, the common worry that priests and lay ministers around the world are willy-nilly altering the prescriptions of the Roman Missal to suit tastes. Given how far out of hand that sort of thing can get, I share the worry in part. Then again, consider a practical case. Should a priest NOT alter this wording of the Prayer after Communion on the First Sunday of Advent? Read carefully:

May these mysteries, O Lord,
in which we have participated, profit us, we pray,
for even now, as we walk amid passing things,
you teach us by them to love the things of heaven
and hold fast to what endures.

To what does "them" refer? I suggest the meaning is that we learn to "love the things of heaven" when we are taught by "passing things" in this badly-rendered translation. Wouldn't good liturgy REQUIRE that this be changed by a priest, in order that the Christian message not be corrupted and the Mass celebrated validly? This is a particular case, I admit. But it raises an interesting problem.

3) The idea that the Novus Ordo is not an organic development doesn't make me laugh at all. If it were a complete break from the past, it would have done away with all that is recognizable. Everything from Confiteor to Agnus Dei would be gone. Your hyperbole makes a bad argument because now I can prove you wrong. But once we pass that problem, we're in truly interesting territory because we're talking about what is and is not organic. So, let me give you a chance to back away from the hyperbole and explain the difference, as you see it, between developments that are organic, and those which are not.

There are two things I wish would change. We have numerous priests that come in to say our Masses to help out our pastor. Some of them will, at the end of Mass, will tell a little story and one even tells a joke. Another thing that bothers me is that right after Mass, people turn main gathering place in a social hall. So many times I would love to sit quietly after Mass and pray but am unable to. It's hard to meditate when a group of people are standing behind or next to you talking about their problems at work or where should they go to breakfast. I think both of these are highly inappropriate. I'm old school, I guess. Was raised in the church before Vatican II and still believe in the sanctity and reverence we should all show our Lord in His house. That seems to have disappeared.

Mr. Weigel, I appreciate your comments on liturgical correctness. But over and above your zeal to make sure that the guidelines are followed, it is more important that the parishioners and congregation be made to understand the whys and wherefores of the rules. Please do not presume everybody knows the nuances of the mass because they don't. And if you insist on hard-selling the "retrofitting" as you have tried to do through this article you might be setting yourself up for failure. Jesus was not cranky when he taught those who were not close to Him.

Notottaviani,

1) Much of the liturgical griping, both in this thread and elsewhere, is over things that can be called, in isolation, trivialities. I am guilty of this myself, because it's fun (therapeutic?) to play "spot the liturgical abuse." However, the announcing of hymn numbers is not a desecration on par with Cromwell stabling his horses in various chapels across England.

Nevertheless, there are aspects of the NO that are radically different from the common, historical experience of worship and which are, at best, theologically suspect, and at worst, destructive to the liturgy (which I would argue is far more significant than you seem to believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi).

Briefly, a couple of examples of the latter are the (literal) destruction and/or repositioning of the altars and the switch from worshiping ad orientem. Celebrating the liturgy facing the East is something which dates to the very earliest years of Christian worship. Besides breaking from tradition (which illustrated an important theological point in a simple manner, i.e. we look to the rising sun/Son), it also changes the role of the priest from leading the people in worship (everyone facing the same direction) to becoming the center of worship (everyone faces the priest, he has his back to the East). The priest is now the "star" of the "show," when formerly the focus was directed to the eucharist. This leads to myriad other problems (e.g. the priest as amateur comedian at open mic night) that simply did not previously exist.

Another major shift is the removal of altar rails. This has led to problems both "minor" --the miraculous multiplication of EXTRAordinary ministers of communion-- to the profound --the loss of reverence for the eucharist-- and many things in between. Yes, we can be sure, in the past people have not always reverenced the eucharist and there are many now that do; likewise, there were "bad" masses in the past (e.g. liturgical abuses) and there are "good" masses today, etc. As far as the particulars go it is not a simple matter of Old=Good, New=Bad. But on the whole, in the bigger picture, this is largely true.

The changes of the NO led to the loss of the Friday fast and the pre-mass fast, and this has naturally led to a dramatic loss of reverence for the eucharist (to take one example). No doubt other factors contributed to this, such as poor catechesis in schools, but again, lex orandi, lex credendi. When one is in the habit of fasting for hours before mass, one has inculcated a sense that "this is something very important" even if they are not always conscious of this, or do not fully understand it, or do not fully believe it. When one can eat a sandwich in the car on the way to mass, there is no inherent reason to think "I am about to receive the Lord God into my body, perhaps I should prepare myself." Examples could be multiplied ad infinitum.

2) "Them" refers to "these mysteries;" while this could perhaps be better expressed, it is nevertheless an immense improvement over the lame 1973 translation:

Father,
may our communion
teach us to love heaven.
May its promise and hope guide our way on earth.

More on the translation of this particular prayer here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/quaeritur-what-does-the-post-communion-of-1st-sunday-advent-really-say/

Regardless, the problem you raise is due to translation, and such an issue simply did not exist prior to the NO. Let's not even start on the readings used from the New American Bible...

3) I will concede that my initial response was hyperbolic, and that the NO was not literally a "complete break," nevertheless it does represent a seismic shift with seemingly innumerable implications. I don't have time here to detail them (we haven't even touched on many of the most important issues, such as music), beyond the brief mentions I made above, but as you if you are genuinely interested in this I would direct you to two books titled "Spirit of the Liturgy," one by Romano Guardini and one by Joseph Ratzinger. If you don't have the inclination to read those, here is a short review of Alcuin Reid's "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" (which I would also recommend) by Cardinal Ratzinger:

http://www.adoremus.org/1104OrganicLiturgy.html

Finally, I would just add that there are elements of the NO which I find to be improvements (e.g. adding an Old Testament reading), and elements of the extraordinary form which I have little problem changing (e.g. having the congregation stand, then immediately sit again at the Offertory), though there are few of each. From your comments I suspect that you are a thoughtful person; I hope that you will therefore be open to further thought and prayer on these issues.

DP, I still fast an hour before mass. The shift to NO did not affect my catechism at all. We cannot put all the blame of non-observance on the NO. Most of the responsibility belongs to the parents who incidentally drive their kids to the drive thru before mass, and who scarf down a double burger with cheese and fries beofre the noontime mass begins. NO or no NO, nothing has the force of parental example, discipline and school catechism to influence the flock. Come on now how many families still say grace before and AFTER meals?

>> NO or no NO, nothing has the force of parental example, discipline and school catechism to influence the flock.

I heartily agree! I also keep the fasts, as many other Catholics still do. Most people don't realize that the Friday fast was never rescinded, but that Paul VI allowed the option of substituting a different penance (which is sensible for a number of reasons). However, most Catholics are unaware of this, and many (most?) are not really culpable because they were never properly instructed. I went through 10 years of CCD in the 80s/90s and received almost no actual catechesis (fortunately I had good instruction from my parents). Little wonder that we need a New Evangelization!

I guess the change I'd like to see most is people not judging what is going on in the hearts of others at Mass. I quite reading after the 15th comment above because so many decided that others were idiots for having clean hands and raising their arms and making eye contact while singing.

You know what? I'd be thrilled if the parish community found themselves having deeper and deeper conversions because they choose to take going to Mass seriously.