"The Bad Ol' Days" According to a Deacon

California Catholic Daily  recently ran this story about Deacon John Ashmore’s homily of March 11, which pointed out all the “failings” of the Church that were “corrected” by Vadican Too. You can read the news article here, and the entire sermon here.

A personal note: Deacon Ashmore’s parish is Christ the King in Pleasant Hill, California – the very parish where I had my first experiences of the Catholic Mass, as a non-Catholic. It’s the parish where our marriage was “blessed” after our annulments, and it’s the parish where our daughter was baptized. It’s also a parish where the pastor went on to celebrating clown Masses (after we moved to a new city, thank God!).

Here are some excerpts (my emphases throughout):

…I think over the period of a couple thousand years, the church developed some institutional “money changers.” The “rites,” that’s R-I-T-E-S, became failings in some ways. Just to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the old rites, Latin or the Tridentine Mass. They were beautiful and mystical, but sometimes they were so mystical that they cut us off from the immanent reality of Jesus with us and in us.

“Nothing inherently wrong” with the “old” rites….what a relief! It would be quite disconcerting to find that what the Church had been doing for centuries, with minor changes that evolved organically, was somehow “wrong”. And every fiber of my being wants to scream that “beautiful and mystical” does not “cut us off from the immanent reality” of Jesus!

In my little world of limited choices for liturgy here in Eastern Oregon, I see a few priests who take a minimalist view of the liturgy, and the first thing they want to minimalize is the beauty and mysticism of the Mass. They say things like “This isn’t Rome!” when asked to implement some required element of the liturgy that has been long neglected in our parishes. They want to emphasize the humanity of Jesus to the detriment of our appreciation of his divinity. Their homilies focus on how Jesus was “just like us” – which is surely important to ponder, but I am wearied by the mundane diatribes that result. Sometimes Jesus is reduced to the level of a sinner like me! Those “beautiful and mystical” rites help us to lift us up, to “be perfect” as Jesus told us to be (Matthew 5:48), and to appreciate the spark of divinity in our own souls.

Deacon Ashmore goes on to mention the Missal he received as a Confirmation gift:

I was now, at the age of ten, responsible to take my missal to every mass I attended, and follow the reading and prayers as they were said by the priest. There was just one minor problem, and it began like this: “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Introibo ad altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.” (That means, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I will go in to the Altar of God. To God, the joy of my youth.”)

This is not a problem with the “old rites”, Deacon Ashmore. Latin is the official language of the Church. Canon law requires seminaries to teach Latin to the seminarians; our rite is called the Latin rite. And every “old” hand Missal I’ve seen includes the Latin prayers and an English translation. I’ve learned a lot of Latin just by making the comparison between the two translations. No, the problem is not with the “old rites” or the language; the problem is with one’s attitude toward them.

The mass was celebrated entirely in a language that none of us understood. The priest stood with his back to us saying words that, even if we could hear them, which we seldom could, we didn’t understand. Missals had Latin and English translations, so those who had them tried their best to keep up, eyes darting back and forth between the Latin and the English. This language confusion caused some people to just give up. People often spent their time at mass in personal devotions like the rosary.

I fail to understand why people want to hold on to the idea that they can never, ever understand Latin! Nor can I understand why they want to hold on to the idea that the priest “turns his back to us” at a Mass celebrated ad orientem. I think this is willful ignorance. And puh-lease! “Eyes darting back and forth” between translations? “Language confusion”? I think the real problem here is a lack of catechesis and Catholic identity confusion.

My eyes dart back and forth between translations when I attend a Mass said in Spanish. I don’t find it a problem, really. For one thing, I know what the priest is saying…not because I understand Spanish, but because I’ve been to Mass a few times. It’s really not that difficult. The priest does tend to say the same prayers at every Mass, ya know! The Mass is “universal” because it’s (supposed to be) said the same way all over the world. So even if travelers find the language unfamiliar, they still know the rite. They should know what the priest is praying.

The deacon goes on to complain about a variety of things. He says that the existence of “side altars” encouraged “the idea that any mass was more about the celebrant than the people” and that this was “one of the pre-Vatican II failings of the church”. Hello! The Mass is more about God than anyone else! And I maintain that the talk-show-host mentality of the Novus Ordo has led to far more focus on the personality of the priest than any of the rubrics of the extraordinary form.

Deacon Ashmore also complains about that pesky communion rail that was a “physical barrier” between the altar and the people back in the bad ol’ days before Vaddican Too. Never mind that nowhere in any Vatican II document was removal of that “barrier” mandated! Frankly, I see no problem with this “barrier”. It helps us to remember that there is a difference between us and God. It helps us remember that the priesthood is a special ministry, and that priests are set apart from the laity…intentionally, and for our benefit.

Too "ornate" for God?

We see the deacon’s minimalist leanings, too, when he complains about the “ornate carvings” on the altar, and the number of candles, altar servers, and even (gasp) steps to the tabernacle! Such excesses! (eyes rolling) And of course, there’s the usual complaint about how there were only altar boys and no altar girls and how we can thank God that now we are more inclusive. Never mind the dwindling vocations and the fact that female altar servers were not mandated by Vatican II, and special permission had to be given for their use.

But to me, the most egregious thing in his whole presentation (and this homily was given as a slide show, apparently), was this statement:

Only the priest and bishop had thumbs and forefingers consecrated so they could touch the host. To me the idea that only consecrated fingers could touch the Blessed Sacrament was a bit silly. Why is any finger more sacred than any other?

Apparently this deacon does not understand priestly ordination. He doesn’t understand that the priest’s hands are anointed.

Deacon Ashmore concludes:

Fifty years since the beginning of Vatican II, I think the reforms instituted have made our church into a much better place. The people of God are the worshiping community, not a community separated from the clergy. While we praise and worship our mystical God, we are more in touch with the immanent God who sits with us in our own skin. There is still much work to be done. There are still too many ignored and silenced voices. But let us rejoice during this anniversary in the strides that we have made, and ask our good and gracious God to be with us as we strive to chase the money changers out of the temple and become the people and church that he wants us to be.

“Much better place”?! Then why is attendance at Mass so dismal?

“Separated from the clergy”?! You betcha! That’s why we ORDAIN priests. Duh.

“Too many ignored and silenced voices”?! I couldn’t agree more! Mine is one of them - along with everyone else who would like to have a regular celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass, and who would like to see a “reform of the reform” – or even those who just want a faithful following of the rubrics for a novus ordo Mass.

“Become the church God wants us to be”?! YES! We had some explicit instructions about that, and liturgical worship. Still do. But people like Deacon are either unaware of the rubrics – even of their precious Novus Ordo! – or simply wish to impose their own interpretation.

Well, go and read the homily for yourself if you want to see a picture of what seems to be a willful misunderstanding of the extraordinary form of the Mass. You can read about the dark, scary confessional, and the exclusion of girls from altar service, and how “terrified” the young people were at confirmation (and they were SEGREGATED, too!).

I am running out of patience with people who spout this kind of nonsense. Especially clerics who do so.

Ugh.

For the other side of the coin, see yesterday's post "The Vortex: Latin Anyone?"

Also related: 

Altar BOYS: There’s a Reason for That

Nothing Compares with the TLM

Why I Promote the EF Mass

Paving the Way for the EF Mass

 7 Reasons Why You Should NOT Go to the EF Mass

Just the Facts, Ma’am: A-Massing the Evidence
Why Yes, We HAVE Been Robbed!