All three of my children as well as my sister and I were baptized Catholic and I would like to become an active parishioner with your church. What are the first steps I would have to make?

I don’t know much about “warp speed” Masses.  That was before my time.  But it seems to me that the solution to that problem was to slow down, not butcher the liturgy and rob my generation and those after of our birthright as Catholics.

Who exactly is denying the validity of the “mass in English?”  I know of no one.  And you seem to be trying to conflate the words “sacred” and “valid,” hopefully not intentionally.

If I have a validly ordained Catholic priest celebrating Mass while surrounded by a bunch of belly dancers, it is most certainly still valid.  So what exactly is your point?

There are currently, two forms of the Roman rite.  It is NOT wrong for a Catholic to have a preference.  The Holy See has said that the intent is for us to eventually have, once again, simply one form of the Roman rite and that both will “mutually enrich” and produce yet ANOTHER hybrid rite that is yet to emerge.  We’ll see.

We will most certainly end up with one Roman rite.  Currently we have on the one hand the Mass of All Ages, which was constructed by the Holy Ghost over centuries.  And on the other hand we have a man centered rite constructed by late twentieth century modernists in consultation with heretic protestants.  How did the Holy Father himself put it?  A “banal, on the spot product.”  But valid no doubt.

Which one do you think will ultimately emerge?  Considering who is in charge of the process, the Holy Ghost, I have no doubt.

For our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, for Summorum Pontificum, and Universae Ecclisiae:  Deo Gratias!!

This is another frustrating article on the liturgy which completely misses the point. Some people argue over the liturgy because the liturgy is the prime teacher of the faith and is just as important, if not more so, than catechesis. When some argue over the liturgy the only “side” they’ve picked is to be on the side of forming Catholics to be all they can be spiritually, in their hearts, and in their minds, just as desiring strong catechesis is also to be on the “side” of Catholics.

When I read articles like this, one of my thoughts is “You’ve got to be kidding. Have you read anything like “The Ottaviani Intervention”, or “The Case for the Latin Mass”, or “The Heresy of Formlessness?” Because if the authors have, no evidence of it is shown in the article as the genuine concerns of these men (one of whom was an eminent Cardinal) are addressed. And their concerns are not over validity, or abuses, but over the real and substantial changes made to the liturgy itself after Vatican II. Perhaps papers like the Register can change tack and show how to discuss the liturgy in a gracious, yet substantive manner, much like the authors I mentioned.

I am so happy to see this posting.  Thank God.

People who wish sincerely to pray there is no much importance in quality or language of liturgy. Better liturgy helps, but most important is our personal relationship with God.

And we DO need healing.  We have no leaders among our hierarchy. A war has been going on for more than 10 years but do we have any calls for a novena or prayers before or after masses?
God has been forgotten.

I wish that people would recognize that there are truly no “sides.”  But, alas, there are people who want to make this a political thing, one requiring “sides.” 

I, personally, prefer to attend Mass in English.  I would prefer to pray in the language I speak.  That does not mean that all Masses should be in English, after all there are people who do not speak English and should have the Mass in the language they speak. 

But, on the other hand, I believe that there is room in our church for those who would prefer to attend Mass in Latin. 

I think a solution would be to take a survey of the parish, preferably not at Christmas or Easter when the attendance swells due to those that only attend Mass on Christmas and Easter.  And then proportion the Masses according to the percentage of preference.  Therefore, if 60% of the parishioners would prefer Mass in English, 60% of the Masses would be said in English, etc..  Also, if 80% of the attendees at 8:30am Mass would prefer Latin, don’t do the Latin Mass at 10am. 

I also think that at least monthly their should be masses directed at teens and youth, children, the elderly, etc.  Not that the reading should be different but the homily should.

But, who am I.  I am merely a person in the pews who will attend Mass no matter what because I wish to receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

When I go to Mass. I don’t particularly care what the words are or the language. I only care that when the priest says THIS is MY Body/ This is MY Blood I become HIM, He becomes me. Lives in me and loves me. My mind will follow what ever HE says. AMen.  G-Mom

THANK YOU for this post!  St. Paul said we must be “all things to all people” and I just cannot understand why, when the Church approves both forms, we have to squabble about which form is better.  I attend both forms every week because I direct choirs at Masses using the two forms.  I love both, and I can appreciate the mystery and reverence which attracts those who attend the extraordinary, as well as the “accessibility” and participation/dialogue (largely enhanced by the use of the vernacular) that attracts so many to the ordinary.  Each form has a beautiful and wonderful place in the life of the Church.  The one which is “best” is the one that most lifts the heart of the worshipper to live a life of faith and hope and charity.
  If, for one, that means the ordinary form - GREAT!  Attend the Mass in the O.F., love God and your neighbor (even the one who prefers the silence and mystery of the extraordinary form!).  If the E.F is that which lifts your heart and feeds your soul - GREAT!  Attend the extraordinary form, love God and your neighbor (and don’t look down on them because they love the form THEY grew up with!)  Just because one form is better FOR YOU doesn’t make it the best.  To believe that your preference determines truth is something called pride and pride is the foremost obstacle to charity.
  The Church approves both forms.  She does so in her vast vision and wisdom.  Are we so proud as to believe we know better?

It’s unbelievable that people are fighting this new translation.  we had to do it in the 60’s to the form we have now and it barely took us a month to adjust,

At last, an adult commentary on the squabbling about the liturgy. Thank you!

My pastor contrasts the contention between extreme arms of the Church against a backdrop of persecution, secularism, a Culture of Death and other problems of our time. His take on it is that these arguments have all the importance of discussing the texture of the toilet paper in the church restrooms.

He may be onto something there.

I appreciate the comments but again, they seem to miss the point. One simply could not apply some of the reasoning given here to catechesis or education.

You wouldn’t say, for instance, that for those who prefer solid and substantive catechesis in church—Great! And those who prefer a watered down version (but not heretical)—Great!

Nor would one take a poll of students to find out who liked reading comic books and which ones liked Shakespeare and the classics and then adjust the curricula accordingly.

Again, the liturgy is the prime teacher and shaper of Catholics and therefore ought to be the best it can objectively be. We have had enough time and experience to evaluate both forms to intelligently assess which really does lift the heart and mind to God better (which is not, of course, necessarily consonant with which form is more personally comfortable or preferable).

@Tara Gilcreast - To become an active Catholic, contact your local parish priest.  An easy way to find what parish is near you is to use: http://www.masstimes.org  If you type in your zip code, it will show you which Catholic Churches are near where you live.  Welcome home!

\\I also think that at least monthly their should be masses directed at teens and youth, children, the elderly, etc.  Not that the reading should be different but the homily should.\\

The homily, just like the rest of the mass, should be for ALL the faithful.

One of the most difficult tasks of a Priest is to preach a homily that will benefit and edify everybody, from the most barely catechized child (or adult) to the most spiritually and theologically informed parishioner.

Count me in agreement with “Subvet’s” comments above re the importance (or not) of tweaking to create a new liturgy.  What happens ten years from now if the next Pope decides the changes desired by Benedict are ill advised?  And why should we view his changes should now supersede those of Paul VI or John Paul II?

Well, those of us who prefer the Gregorian rite look at what Pope Benedict is doing as restoring our Catholic heritage rather than tweaking to make a new liturgy.

Regarding the good priest who compared “squabbling” over liturgy to arguing over the texture of toilet paper I respond with Fr. Z’s note regarding Summorum Pontificum:

“It concerns liturgy, and, as I have said a zillion times here, liturgy is doctrine.  Faith, doctrine, liturgy, identity are all interlocked.  They are facets reflecting the bright core of the same jewel of our beautiful and true Catholic Thing.”

It is precisely because we live in a world so engulfed in secularism, with a million things to distract us from even contemplating eternal life, that a beautiful, solid liturgy is not just a luxury, but a necessity and potential bulwark. Beauty in the liturgy, art, architecture, and music may in some cases be the only thing that can pierce the secular encasement so many walk around in these days.

Beauty attracts, banality is ignored.

One must remember that for the most part these a American-made catholics where obedience is a nasty word and knowing the basic Catholic doctrine along with Holy Scripture is forbidden. How else could we explain “pope” Ted Kennedy and the obedience shown to him by our bishops compared to the lack of obedience to the real Pope? Come Holy Spirit, come.  +JMJ+

I think the debate goes deeper than Latin or English—it goes to attitudes that have developed since Vatican II—which Our Holy Father, obedient to the Holy Spirit, has addressed (find some of his writings) and is trying to correct. To say there is no division is denial. When I attend mass (English) some kneel during the consecration while others stand, some receive in the hand while others on the tongue, some replace “God” while others still say Him, some genuflect in silence while others chat as they leave the church (or walk up the aisle to receive the Eucharist). On either side there appears to be self-righteous rationalizations. I believe this is what the editors are referring to in this article. While there can be holy, humble communicants at either mass, OVERALL we have a problem which Our Holy Father has recognized and is trying to correct (basically a lack of appropriate reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, which has been facilitated by unsanctioned modifications to the mass—the inch given has become a mile). To deny we have a problem is disrespectful to Our Holy Father. Can we not just trust him and come together under him?

teresa,———here is my problem with, IMO, appears to be an over emphasis regarding the structure of all the standing, genuflecting, sitting and kneeling during mass.  Who is to say what is (or is not) correct?  You say Benedict is attempting to correct errors.  Does this mean prior structure and ritual implemented was wrong?  If what you say Benedict is doing—that is, correcting Paul VI and John XXII, were not these prior popes led by the Holy Spirit?  How do we know Paul VI and John XXIII were incorrect and that it is Benedict (by making his changes) is now acting against the Holy Spirit?  I agree that proper reverence should be reflected at mass, but this aspect seems more man-centered rather than Christ-centered.  It seems to me that so long as reverence is shown, that is what pleases God and not all this focus on formal protcol.

new observer—please read again (and not just me—read some of the Holy Father’s concerns; read both sides). It is not that the English mass is wrong or better than the Latin. It is the attitudes that have developed and I was in the pew happily singing “One Tin Soldier” post-Vatican II as the drums rolled behind the altar. There is a slippery slope to many aspects of life—not just contraception and abortion. The inch (standing and receiving on the hand) became the mile (baking different breads to consecrate, rock bands, placing a mirror in the monstrance, changing words and postures impulsively—not in union with the ONE, holy, catholic—This debate is NOT about structure; it is about attitude BUT structure fosters certain attitudes (ask any teacher). Behaviors impact our perceptions of our self and other. Can you not accept that SOME behaviors are a cause for concern and that they might be related to imprudent and unauthorized change. The Holy Spirit prompts our Popes to respond to our NEEDS—which change with social changes. This dynamic is complicated and requires humble cooperation because most of us have very limited knowledge and understanding of the Church as a whole compared to the Pope—whether it is Benedict, Pius, Paul or John Paul!

teresa, .... you make some valid points and now I understand you better.  While I am very familiar with the political message of “One Tin Soldier” —that is simply a horrible song for liturgical music in church.  Such music has its origin in the Vietnam anti-war movement from which many liberals and feminist nuns have sprouted from.  It is these people who have now become parish Directors of Liturgy and Music and also Pastoral Associates.  Unfortunately, many Pastors seem to have abdicated their leadership roles and given them over to these people who now control the worship “style” on Sunday.  Given my comments, I do not think we need “top down” micro management coming from Rome to the United States regarding what should be common sense to individuals for proper reverence at mass.  Pastors and Bishops are placed in leadership to exercise leadership and unfortunately we have too many examples of clergy who never had the skill sets to be named as Pastors or Bishops.  They might be good priests, but if their decisions or leadership has proven poor, they should be reassigned instead of retaining the title for life.  It is then that the people suffer.  My concern is the issuing of mandatory edicts when simply using prudent and good judgment should be implemented at the local and diocesean level.  We are adults, not children.

I don’t often blog; and this is the first time I have responded more than once. I am glad I did; I too understand you better. One more thought.

Let the children come to me; Unless you become as a child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

We must not stop thinking and we must mature in our faith; but Christ Himself has called us to be childlike—Ponder with Mary what that call means; certainly it involves freely choosing to recognize authority as long as it does not involve sin.

teresa,—I find your argument off-point and unconvincing.  Christ calls us to be childlike in trusting Him in faith.  As a child easily trusts his mother and father without hesitation, so are we to also possess a childlike faith in Christ.  The passage you quote has nothing to do with adult Christian maturity.  God blesses us with common sense and we are expected to use it,—daily.  A reasonably intelligent Catholic man or woman should not have their mind morph into mush each time one enters the vestibule.