Responding to criticism about my books

In a recent thread on the Catholic Answers Forum (now locked, because the conversation went off-topic), I had a bit of a back-and-forth with a clergyman (whether deacon or priest, I do not know) who goes by the handle FAB about my books.

I was bit short (and rude) with him as you can see below, but I'm trying to mellow out and be more civil and charitable as our conversation continues.

Apr 1, '11, 5:35 pm

FAB Regular Member Join Date: July 11, 2007 Posts: 1,126 Religion: Catholic

Re: New translation of Mass question I read the parts of your books on Amazon. Even though they contain great historical information, they lean two much on the practices of the extraordinary form of the mass as well as explanations from that mass in attenpts to explain the Novous Ordum. Vatican II in what I read gets only brief mention and the quotes are given from various popes to particularly drive what seems to be a more traditional view. You talk of particiaption in the mass, but not of the communial nature of it, maybe you cover it else were, but since I'm not planing on buying them I'll won't find out. In my opinion there are many other books which cover the mass which do focus on it alone.

Apr 1, '11, 9:57 pm

japhy Forum Supporter Book Club Member   Join Date: February 28, 2007 Location: Ewing, NJ, USA Posts: 5,381 Religion: Catholic (Roman Rite)

Re: New translation of Mass question By all means, make your judgment based on only those parts of the book you could read for free on Amazon. My books are about the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I draw on material about the Roman Rite, both old and new. Much of the source material is about the older forms of the Mass, because the Ordinary Form has only been around for a few decades. But because the Mass is the Mass, a lot of what was written 50, 100, 200, and 1500 years ago is applicable to our liturgy today. I do cover the communal nature of the liturgy, especially when talking about the "communion of saints", the Confiteor (where we ask our brothers and sisters to pray for us, and they ask US to do the same for THEM), and other places throughout the books. I do talk about what Vatican II said about the liturgy. But Vatican II is very recent in our liturgical history, and there's a lot more to be said about the liturgy than Vatican II said. But again, I do quote Sacrosanctum Concilium a great deal. And the modern Catechism too. It's pointless for me to defend my book against someone who hasn't read it.

Yesterday, 9:51 am

FAB Regular Member   Join Date: July 11, 2007 Posts: 1,126 Religion: Catholic

Re: New translation of Mass question Amazon has the first chapter of each of you books on line, which is enough to get a flavor of them. You talk about past practices, and speak of them as though they should still be done, instead of using them as a reference and expaining why some practrices are no longer used. In doing so you mislead by implying that those practices were better or more sacred than the Novus Ordum. In doing so you implant seeds of doubt. They are promoting a certain agenda and not particularly a renewal of the understanding of the mass that the Bishops are promoting as part of the institution of the revised missal.

Yesterday, 11:17 am

japhy Forum Supporter Book Club Member   Join Date: February 28, 2007 Location: Ewing, NJ, USA Posts: 5,381 Religion: Catholic (Roman Rite)

Re: New translation of Mass question Quote: Originally Posted by FAB Amazon has the first chapter of each of you books on line, which is enough to get a flavor of them. If you want another free sample, visit my web site and read a chapter from each book (free) on the Liturgy of the Word. Please, let me know what you think of them. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB You talk about past practices, and speak of them as though they should still be done, instead of using them as a reference and expaining why some practrices are no longer used. Please give examples. You're being far too vague for me to make a sufficient response. Are you perhaps referring to the vesting prayers, which were once required but are no longer? And a longer fast before the Eucharist? Generally speaking, I employ the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity", endorsed by Pope Benedict, whereby I believe that former liturgical practices can help inform and form our modern liturgical practices. There is value even in those things that have been, for one reason or another, discarded from the liturgy over time. Two examples which you won't see from the free samples of the books are the ancient (and discontinued) practices of the fermentum and the sancta (rites which predate and are not present in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass) during the Fraction of the Eucharistic Host. The introduction of both books begins at the start of papal interest in the modern liturgical reform movement, which was Pius X's Tra la sollecitudini, then Pius XI's Divini cultus, then Pius XII's Mediator Dei. All three of those documents are sources for Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium. For example: When the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies they should not be merely detached and silent spectators. (Pius XI, 1928) The Church earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at Mass, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators. (Vatican II, 1963) We are filled with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect in all the faithful, who acquire it from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church.(Pius X, 1903) Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithfulshould be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy … for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit. (Vatican II, 1963) Especially in the book on the priest's prayers, I use (discarded) elements of the Extraordinary Form to provide context for the (remaining) elements of the Ordinary Form. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB In doing so you mislead by implying that those practices were better or more sacred than the Novus Ordum. In doing so you implant seeds of doubt. I do think that certain practices (like the use of the vesting prayers and a longer fast before the Eucharist) are better than our present ones, but I do not force that opinion on anyone. But I will certainly share those opinions, as well as the reasons for them. It's my book, after all. I do not think I would call them "more sacred", however. I don't think I'm qualified to make such a judgment. And I do not think my books plant seeds of doubt -- in any case, that was certainly never my intent at all. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB They are promoting a certain agenda and not particularly a renewal of the understanding of the mass that the Bishops are promoting as part of the institution of the revised missal. What is the "they" here? These older liturgical practices? My books? Again, if you have not read the books, you have completely no way of knowing whether they promote "a renewal of the understanding of the mass that the Bishops are promoting." Tell you what. If you're sincere about offering a critique of my books, I'll send you the PDFs of both of them free of charge. It's the least kindness I can do to a reviewer.

At this point, the thread was locked because the content of my books was not the topic, and the conversation on the topic had ended.  So we went to messages.

Today, 11:28 am

FAB Regular Member   Join Date: July 11, 2007 Posts: 1,126 Religion: Catholic

book Japhy, since the thread we were having our discussion has been closed, I did want to answer your last questions concerning your books. I understand from the bio I read on you that you are by trade a computer programer, I didn't see any educational background on Theology, no did I see any colaboration in the righting of the books. Besides the prayers for vesting which are no longer in use, to include these in a book to try to instruct clergy on praying the mass seems very much out of place. I not certain what he point of including it was except for a historical reference. Since I am part of the Catholic Clergy, I hope you were not in some way presuming to lecture on a practice that you feel should still be performed. The other issue I found in the segment that I read had to do with the presentation of the gifts and the Chalice veil. You referenced that the GIRM in dacted that the the use of the veil was still laudable. Just to make certain I hadn't miss something, I went back this morning and read the sections on the GIRM conscerning the preparation of the altar and sacred vessels and found no such comment. The other point I found an issue with was the presentation of the gifts, the idea that they represent Christ being lead to be crucified. Even in an pre Vatican II Explaintion of the gifts it describes them as the people offering themselve to God, and since the gifts come from Christ, the people join in that giving. The current description is thast these are gifts from the people going back to the early Church when the faithful would bring gifts of food to be shrared. Christ said you cannot put new wine into old wine skins. This seems to be waht you are attempting with your books. Trying to instruct on how to pray the Novous Ordum through the focus of previous lituries. Peace and blessings

Today, 12:40 pm

japhy Forum Supporter Book Club Member   Join Date: February 28, 2007 Location: Ewing, NJ, USA Posts: 5,381 Religion: Catholic (Roman Rite)

Re: book Quote: Originally Posted by FAB you are by trade a computer programer, I didn't see any educational background on Theology, no did I see any colaboration in the righting of the books. That is completely correct. I have a C.S. degree and am a computer programmer. I have no formal education in theology or liturgy. I've just done a lot of reading. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB Besides the prayers for vesting which are no longer in use, to include these in a book to try to instruct clergy on praying the mass seems very much out of place. I not certain what he point of including it was except for a historical reference. Since I am part of the Catholic Clergy, I hope you were not in some way presuming to lecture on a practice that you feel should still be performed. The vesting prayers may no longer be required, but that does not mean they are not in use. They have been included in other resources for the liturgy, such as Bishop Peter Elliot's Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite. I included them because I consider them to be a valuable means of preparing for the Mass. The prayers have good spiritual and doctrinal content. Meditating on them (whether you're ordained or not) might bear some spiritual fruit for someone. And I do not think it is out of my place to suggest something to a priest. I am not ordering priests to pray these prayers, I am only reminding them of the prayers (or maybe they never knew of them in the first place?) and making a suggestion that they be used. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB I went back this morning and read the sections on the GIRM ... and found no such comment. I referred directly to GIRM 118 in my book. I do not know what version of the GIRM you have, but here is what I see: 2002 GIRM: "It is a praiseworthy [laudibiliter] practice to cover the chalice with a veil, which may be either the color of the day or white." (#118) If you're referring to the footnote which mentions the use of a veil in covering the tabernacle, the supporting documentation is: Eucharisticum Mysterium 57 (1967), Eucharistiae Sacramentum 11 (1973), and Inaestimabile Donum 25 (1980). I should have included at least one of those references in my footnote. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB The other point I found an issue with was the presentation of the gifts, the idea that they represent Christ being lead to be crucified. That was simply one interpretation of the action, from Theodore of Mopsuestia (died in A.D. 428). It is presented simply to give another perspective, a perspective which interpreted the liturgy as depicting various stages of the Lord's life and/or Passion. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB Even in an pre Vatican II Explaintion of the gifts it describes them as the people offering themselve to God... (Theodore certainly was pre-Vatican II. He was pre-Ephesus and pre-Chalcedon!) As for "the people offering themselves to God", I do cover that, for example, pages 124-125 of Priest (with a quote from JP II). It is also addressed more fully in People (pages 106-107 and 109-112). Quote: Originally Posted by FAB The current description is thast these are gifts from the people going back to the early Church... That is also covered in my books. Believe it or not, both of these explanations are still valid and current. Quote: Originally Posted by FAB Christ said you cannot put new wine into old wine skins. This seems to be waht you are attempting with your books. Trying to instruct on how to pray the Novous Ordum through the focus of previous lituries. (It's spelled Novus Ordo.) Our Lord also said that the "scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." (Matt. 13:52) And I think what I'm doing is taking old wine and putting in a new wineskins, not new wine in old wineskins... but I could be wrong. If the use of older catechisms and older writings and older liturgies is forbidden or doomed to failure for catechizing people about the Ordinary Form of the Mass, then my efforts will not work at all. That's not what I've seen, though. There's plenty of "old stuff" in our modern Roman Rite. Lots of the prayers are old. The Roman Canon is pretty ancient. Even older is Eucharistic Prayer II, which was plucked from the 3rd century, cleaned up a bit, and inserted into the modern Roman Rite a few decades ago. A lot of the explanations of these old prayers are old as well, such as the five catechetical lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, yet they remain ever-relevant to our modern liturgy. I'm trying to teach about about the Ordinary Form of the Mass in the context not only of the 1962 Missal, but of the whole liturgical history of the Church. I think an approach which shuns everything before 1969 (or at least, everything that is not present in the modern Roman Rite) is short-sighted and unnecessarily strict.