Friday, August 31, 2007

Letters to the Editor-Catholic Spirit

Cathy Here.

The Catholic Spirit printed my response to Father John Mitchell's opinion column of August 16th in today's issue of the paper. It is not online. Here is what I said. I took no pleasure in writing this letter. Contradicting a priest does not make me happy, but I felt that something needed to be said. I prayed on it for five days before I sent this letter to the editors.

I read with concern Father John Mitchell's assertions in the August 16th issue.

Summorum Pontificum does not really offer anything new to anyone who paid attention to Pope John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei 20-years ago or what the documents of the Second Vatican Council actually said.

I believe a large reason for the Holy Father's issuance of this motu proprio was in response to the fact that the prior, applicable, church documents are not being appropriately implemented, if at all. However, rather then "turning the clock back" Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum gives us, the Faithful, an extraordinary form of the Mass that may be new to some while still leaving intact the more familiar ordinary form.

I think the fact that we have another valid form for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be an occasion for rejoicing, not, fear and anger.

The Mass, in either form, is NOT the priest's nor the people's. It never has been; it never will be. It's God's.

Janice LaDuke
St. Andrew
St. Paul, MN

Oh, and my buddy Ray gets in on the action too!

Father John Mitchell in his Catholic Spirit "My Turn" article of Aug. 16, is "very sad and very angry". In his opinion, "the Tridentine Mass is a huge step in the wrong direction for our beautiful church".

I would bet that the result of the decision by Pope Benedict to loosen the restrictions on the offering of the “Tridentine Mass” (more properly, it should be called the 1962 Latin Mass of Pope John XXIII) will be that six or so parishes might offer that Mass occasionally.

Why is Father Mitchell so angry about that? Is he being required to say or go to those Masses? No. Is he angry about the far more than six parishes in this Archdiocese who make a travesty of the Novus Ordo Mass of the Second Vatican Council by their improvisations and omissions? I don’t know.

Is he angry about the Minneapolis pastor who allows his parishioners to personally intinct the Sacred Host into the Precious Blood in direct contravention to Canon Law?

What is there about church progressives that drives them to demand that only their view be permitted?

I respect and love our priests. But I really wonder about priests who won’t let me worship in a way that others feel will bring them closer to their God. And by the way, I’m not a real fan of the Mass in Latin. I might go occasionally, but not as a general rule.

Ray Marshall
Basilica of St. Mary
Minneapolis, MN

There is also a letter saying the Latin Mass does not send the church backward by Mr. Timothy Kay of Nativity of Our Lord in St. Paul.

Cross Posted to Recovering Dissident Catholic


Laura The Crazy Mama said...

Oh, when I saw your names in THAT PAPER today, I was cheering out loud and my kids looked at me like I was crazy! I especially loved Ray's simple take on the whole thing. If I didn't know anything about this subject, I would have found his response to be so sensible. Good job, you guys!

Cathy_of_Alex said...

Well, you are "crazy mama". Don't your kids look at you like that most of the time? :-)