Pope Francis Reviewing New Apostolic Constitution to Cement ‘Traditionis Custodes’

[mourningdove~]

reverentcatholicmass.com

Thank you for sharing this information ... I found (2) in my area!

So I have a couple questions, for anyone here:

One of the 'reverent' churches near me is Romanian Byzantine Catholic.
Is kinda cool, that they have a 24/7 livestream webcam in their church, where I can view the beautiful interior of the church.
And they livestream their services, so I will get to watch and see how services are conducted there.

But my questions are:
- I am not Romanian. Are persons of all ethnicities generally welcome to attend a liturgy in this kind of church?
- What is it like to visit one of these churches for a liturgy? Is it quiet and reserved and reverent, or should I be prepared to walk in, be greeted, and asked who am I, why am I there, where do I come from, (am I Romanian? lol!), etc.?

 

[Lady Bug]

Well, one thing I'll get out of the way. I live so close to my nearest parish I can smell it. Yet, I never like to go there, I like to go elsewhere for a more reverent Mass. That's how fed up I am with my nearest parish. However, I would never sacrifice true doctrine in the process. That's a "church shopping" mentality. That sounds like what hardcore Catholics call a Protestant mindset in which they'll settle for a church that doesn't quite have the right doctrine, but whose services make them feel good. It turns the Church services into an idol in which their preference for whatever service supersedes the Truth. I still stand by what I said in the beginning. I cringe at my local parish's Mass and I do try to find a more reverent Mass with better homilies to boot, but if it involves me sacrificing true doctrine, that's where the buck has to stop. I'm kind of surprised some people will be willing to do that.

Edit: Just in case I didn't make my point clear enough even though I repeated it: My nearest parish's Mass makes me CRINGE. The only mitigating factor is that the musicians involved in the songs are very well-trained. They know how to sing and play their instruments well. They don't just choose anyone, they choose professionals. But as I said, even though that's the case, I still have to remember the fact that Jesus' last Supper did not consist of Latin, or organs, or whatnot. Yes, I'm angry enough about the lack of reverence such that I do seek another parish that offers it, but I'm not going to give up on Catholicism in order to do it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thank you for sharing this information ... I found (2) in my area!

So I have a couple questions, for anyone here:

One of the 'reverent' churches near me is Romanian Byzantine Catholic.
Is kinda cool, that they have a 24/7 livestream webcam in their church, where I can view the beautiful interior of the church.
And they livestream their services, so I will get to watch and see how services are conducted there.

But my questions are:
- I am not Romanian. Are persons of all ethnicities generally welcome to attend a liturgy in this kind of church?
- What is it like to visit one of these churches for a liturgy? Is it quiet and reserved and reverent, or should I be prepared to walk in, be greeted, and asked who am I, why am I there, where do I come from, (am I Romanian? lol!), etc.?

Being able to watch a liturgy seems like a useful thing to prepare you. It would be a valid mass and you should be welcome but if it’s all in Romanian or in Slavonic or something you may be at a little bit of a loss.

 

[Erose]

Actually, it is rather normal considering the Melkite and Maronite and Ambrosian and Sarum and Congolese rites and all the other rites. There is a balance between local adaptation (good) and textual corruption (bad) that has been in play in the Church for a VERY long time. We accept the diversity today even in the Latin patriarchy of Dominican and Ordinariate liturgies, and even varying canons while we contemplate a Lutheran form of liturgy somewhat like the Anglican form maybe being possible. Multiple missals. Multiple tabs. A bit chaotic, but then here comes everybody.

If you re-read my post you will see I pointed this out. When the Church made a revision after the Council of Trent, they provided exceptions for not using it, and it included if a diocese, particular church, or religious order has had their own liturgy for more than 2 centuries. But the general masses that were using the Latin Rite as used by Rome, they were not allowed to continue to use the prior missal. What is happening today, is not normal; and it has created a catholic church within the Catholic Church. It has breeded sadly a schismatic view and in some cases heretical views as well. Now, I'm not saying that every person who prefers the TLM is in this class; but all you have to do is look on the internet, and the point is proven.

I'm with some of the gripes that TLM'ers have with the current situation in the Church. I've travelled enough and seen enough to see the abuses being performed out there. I agree that the American bishops went too far when they allowed receiving communion in the hand, and eliminated the altar rails, not to mention the horrible music in some of our churches. But that isn't the fault of the Novus Ordo rite. That is the fault of bad decision making on the part of our bishops, or their weakness of faith not to clamp down on the abuses in their dioceses.

I think one of Benedict's hopes for bringing back the 1962 mass was for cross fertilization. Organically over time. Less rupture and more continuity. Bring back the best of the TLM into the NO and improve the TLM too. Maybe eventually have one very good liturgy again that all could get behind for once. But we are being put back in rupture mode again where bishops think they have to shut down even ad orientem liturgies, or even the novus ordo in Latin to be in compliance with Rome. Such things HAVE happened and ARE happening.

I love Pope Benedict, but if he went into this thinking what you propose, then he wasn't thinking right. The only way cross fertilization occurs, if the two interact. If you have a parish that uses only the Pius X or the Paul VI liturgy, then there won't be any cross pollination unless that parish used both. And even then it would be restricted only to that parish. People going to another parish for Mass, don't impact how that Mass is being run.

Anyway, I disagree that Pope Benedict was even considering what you proposed. His primary goal was to bring the SSPX back into full communion with the Church.

Archbishop Lefevbre actually approved of the 1965 vernacular liturgy, that quickly but conservatively translated thing that now nobody at all uses (as far as I know). So it's not like the vernacular is the problem. It's the differences between the 1965 and the 1970 versions where the challenges lie.

I disagree. There are too many TLM only folks out there speaking of Latin as a sacred language. Praying the Mass in Latin is definitely one of their prime bullet points of wants.

 

[Erose]

Well, one thing I'll get out of the way. I live so close to my nearest parish I can smell it. Yet, I never like to go there, I like to go elsewhere for a more reverent Mass. That's how fed up I am with my nearest parish. However, I would never sacrifice true doctrine in the process. That's a "church shopping" mentality. That sounds like what hardcore Catholics call a Protestant mindset in which they'll settle for a church that doesn't quite have the right doctrine, but whose services make them feel good. It turns the Church services into an idol in which their preference for whatever service supersedes the Truth. I still stand by what I said in the beginning. I cringe at my local parish's Mass and I do try to find a more reverent Mass with better homilies to boot, but if it involves me sacrificing true doctrine, that's where the buck has to stop. I'm kind of surprised some people will be willing to do that.

Edit: Just in case I didn't make my point clear enough even though I repeated it: My nearest parish's Mass makes me CRINGE. The only mitigating factor is that the musicians involved in the songs are very well-trained. They know how to sing and play their instruments well. They don't just choose anyone, they choose professionals. But as I said, even though that's the case, I still have to remember the fact that Jesus' last Supper did not consist of Latin, or organs, or whatnot. Yes, I'm angry enough about the lack of reverence such that I do seek another parish that offers it, but I'm not going to give up on Catholicism in order to do it.

Reading this made me think of something. Why do we Catholics just accept what we got? What I mean by this is why do we not express our opinions to the priest or parish council? Should we not have a voice in how we worship? I mean if we got a new pastor that refused to allow me to receive the Blessed Sacrament on my tongue, he and I would have words sometime before the next Mass.

Luckily, we don't have too many issues when it comes to what you Northeasterners have to deal with, in my diocese in Louisiana. There has been some issues in the past, like standing in the pews after receiving the Sacrament. That I didn't like, so I kneeled. After a while more and more people kneeled, and then we finally had a new Pastor that told everyone, that the proper practice is kneeling; so now my parish kneels.

But would the new Pastor have the courage to enforce that practice if half of the congregation wasn't kneeling?

 

[fide]

I think the prayers of the TLM are beautiful. But I do take great issue with the lack of opportunity for the laity to participate other than spiritually.

There is much lay participation in the TLM - verbal responses and physical actions of standing, sitting, kneeling, crossing oneself. But the main action of the Mass is the re-presentation of the Passion of Christ, and this is rightfully effected by one (1) person, the priest. Our priesthood, the priesthood of the laity, is rightfully in the world and not in public worship. The notion that it ought to be is protestant, ever seeking to eliminate a separate "priesthood" with the "minister-just-like-the-rest-of-us."

The TLM is so beautiful because it is Catholic, and thus it is hated by the world, as Jesus promised that those of faith will be, as He was and is.

 

[mourningdove~]

Well, one thing I'll get out of the way. I live so close to my nearest parish I can smell it. Yet, I never like to go there, I like to go elsewhere for a more reverent Mass. That's how fed up I am with my nearest parish. However, I would never sacrifice true doctrine in the process. That's a "church shopping" mentality. That sounds like what hardcore Catholics call a Protestant mindset in which they'll settle for a church that doesn't quite have the right doctrine, but whose services make them feel good. It turns the Church services into an idol in which their preference for whatever service supersedes the Truth. I still stand by what I said in the beginning. I cringe at my local parish's Mass and I do try to find a more reverent Mass with better homilies to boot, but if it involves me sacrificing true doctrine, that's where the buck has to stop. I'm kind of surprised some people will be willing to do that.

Edit: Just in case I didn't make my point clear enough even though I repeated it: My nearest parish's Mass makes me CRINGE. The only mitigating factor is that the musicians involved in the songs are very well-trained. They know how to sing and play their instruments well. They don't just choose anyone, they choose professionals. But as I said, even though that's the case, I still have to remember the fact that Jesus' last Supper did not consist of Latin, or organs, or whatnot. Yes, I'm angry enough about the lack of reverence such that I do seek another parish that offers it, but I'm not going to give up on Catholicism in order to do it.

I get what you are saying!

There is a VERY large, very well-attended, very well-funded Catholic church near to my house. I drive by it nearly daily.
It is very modern in design. It is designed abit like a gymnasium. Not sure there is even a tabernacle visible in the sanctuary.
Their mission is to be a "Vatican II community" and it appears they are.
Events there include things like centering prayer, etc.

All that is way not me, but I have gone there sometimes for Mass. They offer lots of Mass times, making Mass very available.
And the church building is so large that it is easy to slip in and out, and not be noticed as a visitor.
They have security guards on hand also, which seems to be a good thing these days.

(Note: Another smaller, very old Catholic church near to me now locks the church doors 5 minutes after Mass has started, to protect the congregation inside. We are living in crazy times! I can remember when Catholic churches were most always open for prayer; boy, does that make me old! lol!)

Anyways, I 'get it' that the churches near to us often would not be our first choice.
But it's great to have a choice, and that is one of the things I like about Catholicism.
Within Catholicism, there really is alot of 'choice', depending on what a person likes ...
and there are many ways now to explore and find what it is one likes!

I think it is great that both Novus Ordo and Latin Masses are available. It gives persons a choice.
I hope we don't lose the choice, but should we, that would not be reason to leave the Church.
Sometimes in difficult times, we just do not have as many choices. And yet, we can remain faithful ...

 

[fide]

I've heard rumors of this and was wondering when a thread was going to come up about it.

If the Latin Mass is completely banned, that might be the end of me considering Catholicism. I greatly admire many things about the Catholic Church: it has apostolic succession, it has produced some of the greatest theologians who have ever lived, it has held strong against the world on the issues of contraception and remarriage and clerical celibacy, and it has a rich, detailed history of both scholastic theology and popular piety. But I don't think I could reconcile the Guitar Mass becoming the one and only form, and an outright ban of a form that is objectively more reverent, with the Catholic Church being the true Church.

And that would be terrible. I really like Catholicism. I got a 1962 daily missal this past Sunday and have been reading through it in my spare time. The text of the Mass, the accompanying text explaining the importance of the liturgy in our lives and the purpose of the various parts of the liturgical year, really feels like the people who wrote it, and the people it was written for, took their faith seriously. And when I go to a TLM, I see that the people there do take their faith seriously. They arrive early, they pray in the pews, the priest holds confession before every Mass, mortal sin is actually mentioned, people have large families, they dress appropriately for church, and above all they actually seem to care about being there.

When I go to a Novus Ordo, people clearly don't; they show up late in hoodies and jeans, they're distracted and talking to each other throughout the service, they don't kneel at the consecration of the Eucharist, and they leave early. Confession is held on Wednesday and Saturday for three hours total. Every Mass, without fail, the army of EMHCs makes sure people get through the drudgery they must think Holy Communion is in three minutes flat - one week the priest even apologized because there weren't the "usual number of EMHCs" because one couldn't make it. Kind of defeats the purpose of them being called "extraordinary" when the only thing extraordinary about them is when they aren't there.

But more than all that, I do believe what Pope Benedict XVI said, that "what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." I don't see how I could square that with a proclamation from Pope Francis that contradicts it.

It is beautiful to hear you defend the Truth of what you find in the TLM - it is the beauty and the Truth of the Catholic Faith. And it is not a problem with the Church, that p. Francis might or does contradict it - that would be or is his problem and a huge one at that. I pray that he seriously reconsider his present direction, in the light of eternal consequences.

But as for the Church - the faithful Catholic Church, that is the Bride of the Beloved Bridegroom our Lord - she will persevere and endure and remain. The future will be difficult, as the Book of Revelation and earlier prophecies declare, but He will never abandon His Bride.

And as for us - we must never, never, not ever abandon the Truth - no matter the cost.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Reading this made me think of something. Why do we Catholics just accept what we got? What I mean by this is why do we not express our opinions to the priest or parish council? Should we not have a voice in how we worship? I mean if we got a new pastor that refused to allow me to receive the Blessed Sacrament on my tongue, he and I would have words sometime before the next Mass.

Luckily, we don't have too many issues when it comes to what you Northeasterners have to deal with, in my diocese in Louisiana. There has been some issues in the past, like standing in the pews after receiving the Sacrament. That I didn't like, so I kneeled. After a while more and more people kneeled, and then we finally had a new Pastor that told everyone, that the proper practice is kneeling; so now my parish kneels.

But would the new Pastor have the courage to enforce that practice if half of the congregation wasn't kneeling?

Pastors get it from two directions. They live in fear of displeasing the handful of major donors who keep the parish afloat financially. So they dare not displease them even if they have to keep quiet about certain things. And they live in fear of displeasing their bishop. They could easily be put out onto the street, canceled, put in a psych ward if they dare displease the bishop. It happens. I think lots of priests steer down a narrow little road rather than pastor the souls entrusted to them. A good priest has some controversy. A careful priest is fobic about getting anywhere near controversy. Those are apparatchiki. Smart revolutionaries know exactly how to manipulate this for maximum destructive effect.

If you have a good pastor, take care of him.

 

[Erose]

There is much lay participation in the TLM - verbal responses and physical actions of standing, sitting, kneeling, crossing oneself. But the main action of the Mass is the re-presentation of the Passion of Christ, and this is rightfully effected by one (1) person, the priest. Our priesthood, the priesthood of the laity, is rightfully in the world and not in public worship. The notion that it ought to be is protestant, ever seeking to eliminate a separate "priesthood" with the "minister-just-like-the-rest-of-us."

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this whatsoever. Public worship is just that public. Yes the priest without a doubt is the primary and necessary minister of all Masses; but when you have a public Mass, the people should be there praying to God right along with the priest. It is all about worshipping our Creator, giving Him the praise that is due to Him.

The priest consecrates the Eucharist yes, but along with the priest, we consume the Eucharist together. The Mass should not be a theater where we all watch the priest do what we are suppose to be doing. It should be we all coming together with our priest to give God His due.

The TLM is so beautiful because it is Catholic, and thus it is hated by the world, as Jesus promised that those of faith will be, as He was and is.

The Novus Ordo is extremely beautiful when one comes to it with the right disposition. You have to come to Mass with one intention, to love and serve the Lord. That is it. What this is all about sadly, is what am I getting out of the Mass? What is it making me feel? If this is what you are looking for at Mass, you will never be get it, no matter what language it is prayed in.

We need to remember what the Mass as a whole is a prayer of the people led by their priest to our great and glorious God.

 

[Erose]

Pastors get it from two directions. They live in fear of displeasing the handful of major donors who keep the parish afloat financially. So they dare not displease them even if they have to keep quiet about certain things. And they live in fear of displeasing their bishop. They could easily be put out onto the street, canceled, put in a psych ward if they dare displease the bishop. It happens. I think lots of priests steer down a narrow little road rather than pastor the souls entrusted to them. A good priest has some controversy. A careful priest is fobic about getting anywhere near controversy. Those are apparatchiki. Smart revolutionaries know exactly how to manipulate this for maximum destructive effect.

If you have a good pastor, take care of him.

I don't think this really is the case. Most of the high dollar donors, I would imagine, don't really care how the Mass is carried out. Paying that much money to the Church is either for them an act of piety or a tax write-off. I don't see either griping that there are altar rails in their church. Concerning the bishops, I think it is the other way around. I think there are too many bishops who are afraid for whatever reason to create a fuss, because they are probably thinking that the reason why that church is doing what it is doing is because the masses attending that church want it that way.

I really get the feeling, that Catholics, bishops, priests and lay people are just afraid to rock the boat, and just assume that the other party likes it the way it is. We don't discuss this between each other. In all reality, an average priest has a personal relationship with probably 5% of their congregation, and worship practices probably is not a subject that comes up. It is just the way we do things, and no body knows why.

Most parishes have a new pastor usually every 3 to 5 years, and when you get one, you wonder what is going to change, and then 5 years later you realize nothing did.

Edit: I shouldn't necessarily say that. I have noticed after the changes to the wording of the Mass under Pope Benedict, that there has been a change, at least in my diocese, to a more traditional (not traditionalist) practices. Not a lot of change, but some in the right direction. Music has definitely improved, and there is not as much chatting before Mass, although there is still some afterwards.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is not teaching so ex cathedra couldn't happen.
But for the sake of obedience, the Bishops would of course follow.

 

[fide]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this whatsoever. Public worship is just that public. Yes the priest without a doubt is the primary and necessary minister of all Masses; but when you have a public Mass, the people should be there praying to God right along with the priest. It is all about worshipping our Creator, giving Him the praise that is due to Him.

The priest consecrates the Eucharist yes, but along with the priest, we consume the Eucharist together. The Mass should not be a theater where we all watch the priest do what we are suppose to be doing. It should be we all coming together with our priest to give God His due.

The Novus Ordo is extremely beautiful when one comes to it with the right disposition. You have to come to Mass with one intention, to love and serve the Lord. That is it. What this is all about sadly, is what am I getting out of the Mass? What is it making me feel? If this is what you are looking for at Mass, you will never be get it, no matter what language it is prayed in.

We need to remember what the Mass as a whole is a prayer of the people led by their priest to our great and glorious God.

We are not watching the priest do what we should be doing. The priest is doing what only the Apostles, and those delegated by or through the Apostles - namely priests - can do: make present the once for all Passion of Christ, in His Self-Gift to the Father for the redemption of man, in obedience to Jesus in His command "Do this..." We cannot make that Moment again Present to the world. Only those to whom it is given can do that. We the laity have our vocation that is ours to do, and that should be enough for us.

The Mass is much, much more than "a prayer."

 

[Erose]

We are not watching the priest do what we should be doing.

And when you read the liturgist who were speaking on reform that was their greatest reason for reform. Mass became what the clergy did, and sacramentals and devotions is what the laymen did. You don’t see that now at the TLM’s because those that are attending these Masses are more devout Catholics. But if this liturgy became the norm once more, this is what the majority of the laymen would do. To expect this to change, doesn’t take into account past learned experiences by the Church.

The priest is doing what only the Apostles, and those delegated by or through the Apostles - namely priests - can do: make present the once for all Passion of Christ, in His Self-Gift to the Father for the redemption of man, in obedience to Jesus in His command "Do this..." We cannot make that Moment again Present to the world. Only those to whom it is given can do that. We the laity have our vocation that is ours to do, and that should be enough for us.

. So are you saying that the Novus Ordo is not this? I agree with you this is what the Mass is, we can go in even greater discussion on this matter. Heck there are entire books on this topic. My question is to you then is the Novus Ordo not this?

The Mass is much, much more than "a prayer."

Yes, but it is still prayer. It is the highest form of prayer of the Church but it is a prayer. And vernacular allows everyone to participate in our prayer.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. " 6th paragraph

Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the whole world, that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data “Traditionis custodes” (16 July 2021) | Francis

Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the whole world, that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data “Traditionis custodes”, 16 July 2021

www.vatican.va

Do those here who favor TLM reject the reforms of Vatian II?

 

[jas3]

Anyway, I disagree that Pope Benedict was even considering what you proposed. His primary goal was to bring the SSPX back into full communion with the Church.

This claim keeps coming up in this thread, but Pope Benedict explicitly denied this in an interview:

When Seewald asks whether Benedict lifted the restrictions on the older Mass primarily as a concession to the SSPX, Benedict fires back, “That is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now. The rite must develop. In that sense reform is appropriate. But the continuity must not be ruptured.”

 

[Erose]

This claim keeps coming up in this thread, but Pope Benedict explicitly denied this in an interview:

Well I stand corrected. This comment is pretty surprising to me, since when he did lift the restrictions it was being touted as a concession to the SSPX. Which it did improve relations, and I guess now they are in full communion? I think?

Using the his rational, which I do agree, if it wasn't wrong before, it can't be wrong today, what if a parish in the USA decided to start using lets say the Ambrosian rite, or get their hands on a missal from the 10th century, and decided to start using that for the Mass. I wonder if he would have accepted that parish's position? Speculation.

Anyway, I stand corrected, and I owe Chevy an apology.

 

[Erose]

"But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. " 6th paragraph

Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the whole world, that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data “Traditionis custodes” (16 July 2021) | Francis

Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the whole world, that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data “Traditionis custodes”, 16 July 2021

www.vatican.va

Do those here who favor TLM reject the reforms of Vatian II?

I don't think so here. But if you spend time in the Catholic feeds on Facebook and Twitter, you will find that there is a TLM-only crowd that do reject the reforms of VatII. I've even see it referred to as the Devil's Council. Pope Francis isn't wrong with his assertion. Now what percentage of the TLM crowd is TLM-only? Well that is the question. We all know from experiences that those who scream the loudest are represented as being more than who they are. Just take the alphabet soup crowd, which make up about maybe 1 to 2% of the population, but seeing the political power they hold, you would think that they were 20-40% of the population. The same holds here.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well I stand corrected. This comment is pretty surprising to me, since when he did lift the restrictions it was being touted as a concession to the SSPX. Which it did improve relations, and I guess now they are in full communion? I think?

Using the his rational, which I do agree, if it wasn't wrong before, it can't be wrong today, what if a parish in the USA decided to start using lets say the Ambrosian rite, or get their hands on a missal from the 10th century, and decided to start using that for the Mass. I wonder if he would have accepted that parish's position? Speculation.

Anyway, I stand corrected, and I owe Chevy an apology.

Apology accepted.

The 1962 version of the TLM is the approved one. The only difference between 1962 and the prior version is in the addition of St. Joseph. So if one has an earlier Missal from the 1900’s and adds in St. Joseph’s name it is my understanding that would have also worked. The TLM has had tiny changes from antiquity.

 

[fide]

And when you read the liturgist who were speaking on reform that was their greatest reason for reform. Mass became what the clergy did, and sacramentals and devotions is what the laymen did. You don’t see that now at the TLM’s because those that are attending these Masses are more devout Catholics. But if this liturgy became the norm once more, this is what the majority of the laymen would do. To expect this to change, doesn’t take into account past learned experiences by the Church.

. So are you saying that the Novus Ordo is not this? I agree with you this is what the Mass is, we can go in even greater discussion on this matter. Heck there are entire books on this topic. My question is to you then is the Novus Ordo not this?

Yes, but it is still prayer. It is the highest form of prayer of the Church but it is a prayer. And vernacular allows everyone to participate in our prayer.

I'm sorry, Erose, but I must say this - painful as it is to say, of this Holy Church in our time - such conflation of "the Holy Mass" with "a prayer" is another bitter fruit of a "dumbing down" of the Faith that has come upon the Church like a giant tsunami flattening the whole City of God into a pancake. Our whole concept of prayer itself - once recognized by St. John Vianney as "prayer is nothing other than union with God" - but is trivialized today by modern clergy and prolific popular writers and speakers, beyond recognition by those saints and the holy faithful who have grasped it truly in its essence and supernatural substance.

I was pierced to the heart once to hear from a priest, from the pulpit, describe prayer as "hanging out with Jesus for a while". And who said that the Catholic Church can't be relevant?
Jesus is not "our buddy" - He is our Lord, our God, our King. The Mass is not merely "a prayer" - most certainly not the kind of prayer that too many Catholics imagine it to be.