Group Masses

I am not interesting in condemning people for their sexual proclivities anymore than was the Lord himself when he was confronted with the adulteress but I think that it is interesting that in the comments that appeared on the previous post and elsewhere on the net about the Warwick Street Masses was the thought that this kind "customisation" could not possibly occur with the Trad Mass, it is something that seems to be exclusive to the Novus Ordo.

Again, as various commenters point out the problem is that the congregation is celebrating itself. It is the same thing as lies behind puppet or clown or balloon Masses, or even the great Solidarity Masses and political rallies of the 1970s in Poland. They are designed to include people but of course Masses designed for a particular group always excludes non-group members. Children's Masses exclude teenagers. Mass for Flemish speaking Belgiums excludes French speaking Belgiums. Many Poles who attend Polish Mass here would prefer to miss Mass than attend an English or even Latin Mass. I have a Nigerian friend who is very circumspect about celebrating Mass in the five or six local language he knows: they are divisive and sometimes lead to anger (rather than violence), he prefers English even for non-English speakers, though he is now discovering Latin.

We have always had Masses for particular groups. Guilds and trades would have had their own altars or chapels, often dedicated to their own patron, sometimes with vestments and other ornaments decorated with their own symbols but the Mass was always the Church's Mass, not theirs, it was always above personal or community ownership.

Is the Novus Ordo that different? The answer is really no! The problem is that we have so long flouted the Church's liturgical law, or taken a minimilistic approach to rubrics. Where do we get Mass facing the people from, when the Missal states clearly when the priest is to turn to face the people? Why do priests and those who organise liturgies choose songs, often with little reference to the Liturgy, rather the preferred option of the Enrance, Offertory and Communion Antiphons? Why do we metrical or highly rhythmical music?

It can be argued there is a radical difference in fidelity to the rubrics in the two Forms of the Roman Rite but then many priests before the Council seemed to have been quite cavalier about the use of the vernacular or omission of various payers, what is new is perhaps the addition of rites, but the very fact Pius XII warms against "liturgical archaeology" might suggest a trend to introduce things from the past.

One of the problems is readers. There is always going to be a problem with having a figure Tony Blair read in London, it is always going to change the dynamic of the Mass, as is having someone wearing gym clothes or a Chelsea football shirt - at least as far as a Spurs supporter is concerned. Indeed, I always have someone complain if two women read but then some different complains if two men read.
Bidding prayers too are problematic, but may be not so much so if the rules are followed carefully.

But in both Forms it is the homily which is most problematic, whether it is the Liberal in Soho preaching secular sexual ethics or the "Trad" at a Le Pen Front National Mass banging on about "France for the sons of Clovis". Perhaps we need less preaching and more catechesis.

Priests are always the problem!