Fr. Ruff on the Three Year Lectionary
  • ...are allowed...

    Has anyone failed to notice that in our day it's perfectly alright to have girls or women only stuff and no one minds if boys or men don't participate in it, but to have boys or men only stuff is an unpardonable sin - unthinkable? Those who screech the loudest about 'gender bias' and 'sexism' are its worst offenders.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    The rampant political correctness long ago surpassed ridiculous. I don't put up with it anymore when I encounter it. I have been called:

    Homophobe - No, I don't fear humans at all and am, in fact, not really afraid of anything or anyone.

    Racist - No, I hate everyone equally so no one is singled out.

    Traditionalist - Yep, there was an abundance of talent in earlier times that doesn't exist today meaning many contemporary efforts should be recognized for the garbage they are.

    Insensitive - You're right. I don't give a d**n about your little feelings. Grow up!

    Diversity - That smacks of quotas. How about true equality for a change?

    Go to your safe space and color.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,573
    But you gave me the 8-color box.
    I need the 64-color box to begin to express myself.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    There's a new color, Bluetiful which replaced Dandelion. So yes, definitely the 64 colors.
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,573
    Woohoo!
    The evil CharlesW caved in to my demand agreed to my request.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    I'm sure you express yourself quite creatively. ;-)
  • I am afraid I am with a_f_hawkins. I don’t get the drift.

    I took a class with Fr Ruff just after the new translation was implemented(or whatever word fits there) when NPM was a stone’s throw from my house. He encouraged the use of chant in both Latin and English. I don’t get where he is “the enemy.”

    I disagree with his comment on XVI, presumably Summum Pontificorum.

    But if one accepts the authority of the hierarchy and seeks to perform the liturgy in the best way possible, he seemed all on the “right side” to me.

    What is he “the enemy” of?

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1Olivier
  • madorganist
    Posts: 511
    What is he “the enemy” of?
    The TLM.
  • The original question was about his comments on the Lectionary, which seem to be something to discuss.

    Instead it became a discussion on a rather peculiar proposition: if you care about Chant and the quality of music, you necessarily believe in the restoration of the Mass of 1570-1969. I don't understand that proposition--I certainly do not assent to it-- and I have no idea why Fr. Ruff should be held to a standard other than obedience to the Magisterium.

    Kenneth
  • Goodness—such emotion drawn out by Fr. Anthony...

    I took a fabulous class on chant with him a number of years ago (16 hours over 2 weekends, so a bit more time than the average NPM workshop—it was excellent), and I know him to very much be a proponent of maintaining the musical legacy and heritage of the church. Chant was prominently used in a liturgy I attended at Collegeville. He also was the one brought in to my diocese to prepare the priests and musicians for the chants of the new missal—another excellent presentation, and he convinced a number of priests to chant parts of (or all of) the mass that they would have never considered doing before. He made a particular impact on my rector. We entered the new translation with even the Eucharistic Prayer being chanted at every weekend mass.

    I agree with Kenneth's assertion wholeheartedly.

    Marc
  • madorganist
    Posts: 511
    The traditional Mass was part of the discussion from the beginning: "the three year lectionary vs. the readings as found in the Extraordinary Form," according to the OP. Is unmitigated criticism of motu proprios by St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and the faithful referred to in those documents a manifestation of obedience to the magisterium?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,301
    he's not exactly a friend of traditionalists


    He's a friend of many traditionalists. He's just not a fan of traditionalism.
  • Fr. Ruff has earned his reputation as a provocateur, and much of what is written strikes me as satire. For example, Fr. Ruff wrote:

    Be it noted: leaving after Communion is entirely compatible with a deeply “traditional” Catholic piety and understanding of priesthood, sacrifice, and real presence. Leaving Communion fits quite well with a “sacred” and “reverent” liturgy conducted in Latin. Centuries of history suggests that there is even a sort of inevitability about the liturgical culture and the resulting lay practice. There is a reason why the liturgical reform happened, and there is a reason why the magisterium (Pope Francis) considers it “irreversible.”


    When someone pointed out that those attending the EF never leave early, which is also my experience, Fr. Ruff replied:

    It makes perfect sense to me that such a small counter-movement would have strong identity and untypical high-level practices such as coming on time and staying till the end. But if the EF were to be the mainstream (which I don’t think it can, because of what the Church teaches and believes), it would be exceedingly difficult to maintain this high-level practice.


    In other words, according to Fr. Ruff, leaving the EF “fits quite well” (his words)—and the proof is that nobody attending the EF leaves early.

    Makes perfect sense, right?

    Sheesh…
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • You picked parts that are not an apples-to-apples comparison. In the first, he described pre-conciliar practice. In the second, he is speaking specifically to the modern swell of support for the EF, and what he says makes perfect sense. My parish has the only EF masses in about a 2 hour radius (at least). If you're driving 2 hours to attend the EF, of course you're not going to leave early. He discussed this all in more detail—the intentional nature of modern EF attendance. You're not there because it's the only choice—you've made an intentional choice to attend that instead of the multitude of OF options available to you.

    You are always welcome to disagree with him, but it's not fair to take what he said out of context (or anyone, for that matter).

    Marc
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • If you're driving 2 hours to attend the EF, of course your [sic] not going to leave early.


    I could not disagree more with your interpretation, and I believe the quotes speak for themselves. They're dense, but perfectly clear—and I'm not sure there's a way to wiggle out of his logical conundrum.

    Marc, we don't have to arrive at the same conclusion, but “fairness” (your word) does not enter in, as a careful reading of the quotations will show.
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • I'm only saying that the quotations have to be read in the context they were offered. In this case, he was talking about two entirely different time periods in the church, and they were not offered together. I firmly stand by my comment that it is not fair to take individual sentences out of their original context, and then offer them as a direct comparison.

    Your experiences with intentionality may well be different than mine, but my experience is that for those that have to work harder to access something like the EF, it is going to be more important to them. Even if it is a local option, it is not the default, it is "extra"-ordinary—literally out of the ordinary. They're not the average church-goers who attend the nearest parish to check it off the list. I can make the same point about participation in masses such as the Chrism Mass each year at the cathedral I served (or Rite of Election, or Ordinations)—those that are there really want to be there. The level of singing and engagement is completely opposite the average parish experience in that diocese. I was blown away when I first experienced it, but on reflection it made perfect sense.

    Marc
  • Marc, I also strongly disagree with the idea you’ve put forward (along with Fr Ruff) that attending the EF is a “choice” but attending OF is not a choice.

    Nobody is “forced” to go to any Mass. Period.

    Attending an OF Mass is a choice. Period.

    Attending the EF Mass is a choice. Period.

    ...but, as I said, Fr Ruff’s assertion may be intended as satire.
  • @Dixit .. you could not be more off base if you tried.

    1) taking a persons comments out of context and using them to create a story that supports your biased opinion is exactly what the media does and is not fair at all to the person being quoted

    2) Marc’s point, I think, is that most people who attend the OF don’t even know what the EF is. (And their priests don’t want them to know) Most people who attend the EF are more educated in and serious about the faith. I realize this is a broad generalization and not 100% true - there will always be a number of serious OF attending Catholics that may not know about or have access to the EF - but in more cases than not this is the way it goes. It’s unfortunate. It might not be this way where you are from. You might be lucky. But it’s not such a “black and white” issue as you make it out to be. There are gray areas. Gray areas make the world go round.
  • Sette,

    Again, his comments are posted for all to see, and it’s difficult to see a possible conclusion other than the normal one.

    But more importantly, if Catholics are “more serious about their Faith” (your words) ... why would they seek a liturgy that, according to Fr Ruff, “inevitably” (his word) leads them to leave Mass early?

    And how is it the very place this does not happen is the EF?

    Do you see the blatant contradiction being put forth here?

    Another point for your consideration: why does Fr Ruff assert that “sacred” and “reverent” celebration will inevitably lead to the lay practice of leaving Mass early? (See his quote above; I’m not going to post it again)

    With regard to your 2nd point, nobody is forced to go to Mass: OF nor EF.
  • After reading and re-reading I’m starting to see more and more your point here as well.

    But I still stand by what Marc says with regards to the statements referencing two completely different time periods. He is right. But this has nothing to do with the fact that these are still two contradictory opinions from the same guy.

    I am sure there will be further discussion on this but I wanted to say thanks for making me really think about all of the sides of this issue. I try to always be open and consider all sides before forming my own opinion but I admit this is difficult in practice. So thanks again.
    Thanked by 1Marc Cerisier
  • Sette,

    My pleasure. You’re not alone, BTW. Fr Ruff often “hides” his statements in dense sentences that need the full context.

    your kind words have made me feel like I made a (small) difference in the world—a nice feeling!
  • Settefrati93—I'm happy to hear that there's the possibility that I'm not crazy. Much appreciated!

    Dixit—I have to wonder if we might live in very different parts of the country, as your experiences with Catholics differ tremendously from my own. Settefrati93's point #2 above sums up my experience perfectly.

    Marc
  • I think it is important to note, for Marc and others, that what brought me to agree with you is that even considering the different times and options available, etc, he is literally saying “leaving early is fostered by the EF” and then saying “of course they wouldn’t leave early with their high level practices”

    I equate this to talking from his rear end to bash the EF and it’s supporters in any way possible. It’s the ever changing stances where people will say anything to bash something they hate for reasons they don’t even know anymore. See: politics all around the world
  • I don't get involved in these discussions anymore. I now remember why.

    As regards the Magisterium, I know of no point on which Fr. Ruff dissents from Church teaching. Specifically, I am quite sure he agrees that Vatican II was not a great rupture but part of a continuity of Church practice, as Benedict taught explicitly. Where he disagrees is with a prudential consideration on the part of Benedict that allowing the EF everywhere would calm the waters. While I agree with Benedict's action, I am afraid it has had no such result.

    Fr. Ruff clearly believes everyone should use the same Mass, and here he disagrees with Benedict but agrees with many Traditionalists. It's just which Mass...

    But there is no dissent from Church teaching in that disagreement with pastoral practice.

    Please remember that both St. John Paul II and Benedict thoroughly supported the new Mass and the use of the vernacular. Joseph Ratzinger explicitly said (when Prefect) that having a variety of Eucharistic prayers was a good thing. He believes that the imposition of the Novus Ordo without preparation was unwise and led to many problems, and he said so many times. But he also said that the appearance of finality and uniformity given by Trent was something of an error as well. (In his notes on the Council, written as a young peritus. He does not seem to have changed that opinion that I ever saw, but would be perfectly happy if someone corrected me on that.) Summorum Pontificum was an attempt to foster peace, not a sly message that "I really think Vatican II was all wrong."

    The only quote trotted out to make him seem a Restorationist "in pectore" has to do with the banal language of some particular prayers, not the overall Mass of the Bl. Paul VI itself.

    Again we run into this thing that if one feels uncomfortable with the iron grip of Spring Granola-Tofu on the Cassio, her long crinkly salt-and-pepper hippie 'do floating exultantly as she leads the parish for the fiftieth year in the same "new" worship music, then one MUST obviously support the restoration of the Latin Mass. Those two things bear no relation to each other whatsoever.

    Kenneth
  • My longtime observation has been that the EF is very much more popular in those dioceses where there have been gross liturgical irregularities. I live in the Archdiocese of Washington, and since the off-cited horror of the Clown Mass at Holy Trinity, things have been quite orderly here. I may like or not like this or that kind of music, but I am pretty assured when I go to Mass that it will be done properly. Our Cardinals have always allowed a Tridentine Mass, where I had the pleasure and honor of singing for a while, but attendance is not great.

    I often wondered what people were complaining about on this list until I traveled in the Midwest. Two Cathedrals that I saw in particular were just defiled by "wreckovations." If the EF draws bigger crowds in those dioceses, I certainly see why.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1Marc Cerisier
  • Kenneth, your perception may be correct (or not) but what we were discussing here was Fr Ruff’s assertion that the TLM “inevitably” leads Catholics to leave Mass early .... and the proof given is that EF Catholics never leave Mass early.

    As they say where I’m from: “go figure!”
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    Again we run into this thing that if one feels uncomfortable with the iron grip of Spring Granola-Tofu on the Cassio, her long crinkly salt-and-pepper hippie 'do floating exultantly as she leads the parish for the fiftieth year in the same "new" worship music


    LOL. I have met the demented Spring Granola, and think the old bat should be locked away. Why anyone puts up with her is beyond me.
    Thanked by 2amindthatsuits Carol
  • I can't help but wonder if the discourse would be so negative if we all posted without the veil of anonymity.

    Marc
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • Apart from the fact that Dixit disagrees with your viewpoint, I fail to see in what context the above conversation has been negative. I don't agree with your conclusions about his point, but you have not been "negative" - although someone who was looking for negativity could question your statement regarding fairness. In like manner, I think Dixit has been firm in holding his side of the discourse without being "negative". He simply has said that there are statements in contradiction to one another from Fr. Ruff.

    Disagreement does not, by itself, equal negative discourse. It just means that two individuals or different groups - perhaps equally well-intentioned, perhaps not - don't agree.

    I use a screen-name because that was my understanding of how the forum worked... but I haven't exactly hidden my identity either. Lest you see this post as "negative", my name is John Schauble, from Cincinnati, OH.
  • Actually, it started with the lectionary, but I see dear Fr. Ruff throws in a lot more than perhaps is prudent. I realized when I added my observation about WHERE the EF is popular I was myself digressing, and I apologize.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • I know that everyone has different experiences; but here’s an honest question:

    Has anyone who attends the EF ever seen anyone leave after Communion?

    I’ve never seen it; and many EF priests remind us that “Judas was the 1st person to leave Mass early.”
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    I haven't even seen anyone leave in the OF unless it was people I knew had to leave to go to work. I can even play a verse of the recessional hymn AFTER the priest has left and the congregation stays to sing. Bad congregational behavior exists somewhere, I am sure, but I think it is often exaggerated.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 511
    I've been to novus ordo Masses where fully one third of the congregation left after Communion, and loud talking commenced as soon as the priest left, despite the hymn that was being sung. In Europe, I've witnessed the abuse of the celebrant making his Communion last, after the faithful. My understanding is that one must be present for the priest's Communion in order to fulfill the Sunday or holy day Mass obligation. What of those parishioners who left after their own Communion? A choir director friend upon starting a new job recently went to Communion for the first time in her new parish, folded her hands and extended her tongue as she was accustomed to do. The extraordinary* minister said, "We don't do that here" and forced the sacred Host into her hand. I have never witnessed any of the above behaviors at traditional Latin Masses. I'm sure there are people who leave immediately after Communion, but not anywhere near a third of the congregation. Where exactly does one draw the line between liturgical abuse and sacrilege? Can either possibly be a matter of obligation? (The last is a rhetorical question, for those who might be slow to catch on.)

    *Above, the correlation was made between TLM attendees being more intentional about their choice of which Mass to attend and the Mass itself being "'extra'-ordinary—literally out of the ordinary." Too bad extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not literally out of the ordinary!
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    Now that we have deacons in the parish - something our former pastor wouldn't allow - we no longer have those extraordinary ministers.
  • Not referring to the end of this thread in particular, but was musing in general about this forum as a whole, having participated for a number of years. I'm not the first to mention this.

    CharlesW—it was the practice where I served for the past 12 years that all of the verses of the recessional music (if sung) would be sung, and no more than 1-2 folks left during the singing, and they would be leaving for a reason. Leaving at communion was not something I ever saw happen. OF parish. It was just the tradition of that parish, and could possibly even point to the intentionalty of attending a Cathedral for some of it.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • madorganist,

    Your experience seems incompatible with the statement by Fr. Ruff:

    Leaving Communion fits quite well with a “sacred” and “reverent” liturgy conducted in Latin. Centuries of history suggests that there is even a sort of inevitability about the liturgical culture and the resulting lay practice.

    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 647
    Realize that those choosing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are doing so by choice, and are nostalgic for a fictional simpler time, so would be less likely to leave after Communion than when the Extraordinary Form was all there was.
  • “Realize that those choosing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are doing so by choice…”


    Absolutely; but everyone who attends the OF also does this by choice.

    Nobody is forced to go to Mass, except small children (by their parents).
    Thanked by 2madorganist Carol
  • madorganist
    Posts: 511
    Realize that those choosing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are doing so by choice, and are nostalgic for a fictional simpler time, so would be less likely to leave after Communion than when the Extraordinary Form was all there was.

    Hmm, I notice this wasn't written in purple... Back when the traditional Latin Mass was the "ordinary form," I wonder when the people who were nostalgic for a fictional simpler time left? 100+ years ago, when Communion after Mass was the norm, I wonder how many left Mass early?
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 256
    100+ years ago, when Communion after Mass was the norm, I wonder how many left Mass early?


    Since almost no one received communion, I suspect that was not much of an incentive to stay.

    There are plenty of accounts from the middle ages of people coming and going throughout the Mass. This is still the case in latin countries and among many of our Eastern brethren. I'm not sure what the big deal is, unless one is an Anglo-Saxon rule-following type.
  • Fcb, I’m sure some did walk in & out of Mass in the Middle ages; on the other hand, they also attended the Divine Office on Sundays, which was PART OF the Sunday obligation acc. to Dr William Mahrt.

    Regardless, I humbly submit to you that convincing the current church that leaving Mass early is no “big deal” (your words) is a tough sell, and rightfully so.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,679
    Scripsit CharlesW:
    I haven't even seen anyone leave in the OF unless it was people I knew had to leave to go to work.

    Oh, I know some people who leave directly after Communion with no work or health-related reason. They probably have been doing it their whole lives. When my late mother was becoming a Catholic, one of her neighbors brought her to Mass weekly and left after Communion, leading my mother to think that it was normal. One week, when I took her to Mass, the change surprised her.

    I wonder if it may have been related to an old practice in which Communion was distributed to the faithful after Mass.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,890
    I wonder if it may have been related to an old practice in which Communion was distributed to the faithful after Mass.


    I don't know. When I mentioned my folks not leaving early, it is what happens in that one particular place. I will agree that in the east people come, go, light candles, move around, etc. No one thinks anything of it. But we have three options, Divine Praises, Reader's Service, and Divine Liturgy. Any of the three is acceptable. With the Latin parish where I work, they only have one option, but they are pretty well behaved and do what is expected of them.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    leaving after Communion is entirely compatible with a deeply “traditional” Catholic piety and understanding of priesthood, sacrifice, and real presence. Leaving Communion fits quite well with a “sacred” and “reverent” liturgy conducted in Latin.
    --Fr Ruff quote

    Apparently Fr Ruff does not get out much. I've attended OF Masses since they were invented, and there are--consistently--a bunch of people who take a powder after Communion. Some leave just before their pew empties for Communion, too.

    So it seems that leaving after Communion is entirely compatible with a deeply "modern" Catholic piety and understanding, etc., blahblahblah....
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    The only quote trotted out to make him seem a Restorationist "in pectore" has to do with the banal language of some particular prayers, not the overall Mass of the Bl. Paul VI itself.


    You are correct as far as that goes--but Ratzinger (and later Benedict) has LOTS of quotations in which he clearly condemns the 'music' forced on people who attend the OF. They could be summed by his characterization of most of it: "utility music." I don't think that he is the sort of fellow who could 'spit out words,' but it doesn't take much to see him doing it in that two-word disparagement.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    unless one is an Anglo-Saxon rule-following type.


    You have a problem with that?
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,785
    Gebrauchsmusik is of course one word, and Benedict wouldn't have to rely on tone of voice in the context of 'utility-music of no utility'. I don't think he was in fact disparaging Gebrauchsmusik as such: almost all sacred music is shaped by its context in the liturgy and to the best of my recollection neither the B minor mass nor the Missa solemnis suddenly came into use during his tenure.
  • those choosing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass ... are nostalgic for a fictional simpler time


    I'm sure that may be true in a few cases. I don't think it is true in many, at least from my observation and interaction with EF attendees over more years than I care to admit. I was nine when my parents re-discovered the Latin Mass. Nostalgia might have explained their first visit. But if it was simply "nostalgia", it would have been short-lived... as attending the Latin Mass took some considerable effort on their part. The closest TLM at that time was five hours away. We left at 3:30 AM to be there in time for confession before Mass. We attended weekly for about 6 months until we discovered other Masses that were only 90 minutes away.

    My parents made their decision because of the conviction that there was something fundamentally different between the OF and EF forms of worship... something I've heard numerous others mention when asked about their reasons for attending the Latin Mass.

    Using "nostalgia" to explain that people attend the EF is rather like assuming that those who attend the OF are "intellectually lazy" or "aren't committed" to their Faith.

    I think we can do better on both sides of the issue.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 256
    unless one is an Anglo-Saxon rule-following type.

    You have a problem with that?


    Not at all. It takes all kinds to make a world religion.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,686
    neither the B minor mass nor the Missa solemnis suddenly came into use during his tenure.


    No, because no responsible Catholic church musician would use either of those for the Mass. But you know that.