The Latin Mass and the Laity
In view of the liberalization of the old Rite of the Mass now being so widely spoken of, I thought it germane to discuss what the freeing of the traditional Rite will mean for the hypothetical average Catholic man-in-the-pew. Typically, it is assumed, and vigorously argued in some venues, that it will mean nothing to him: forty years of the vernacular Mass have first inured, then bewitched, the common man. He cannot, it is supposed, go back to the old challenging form of worship; he is too happy with the easy, vernacular Mass with more variety and more inculturation. And while there is a measure of truth in this line of argument, for the most part it is oversimplified hogwash.How could I say this? You may well wonder. The anchoring assumption of the no-one-wants-that-old-latin-anyway argument is that sin has triumphed finally, that grace is inoperative, and that modern man must simply be accomodated or he will use his consumer's choice and leave. While it is true that a large number of individuals do in fact come to their religion from a consumerist mindset, it is hardly these that we should be thinking of when we make decisions for the good of souls. Never will the offerings of God's Church, which must, if they are to be authentic, make demands in the here-and-now, compete with the offerings of Satan, who is all too ready to fool the mind with rest today if he can claim the soul in agony forever. The idea that you can compete with Satan on his own turf leads to many errors in modern "ministry," from misguided youth group activities to some varieties of pop Christian "music."
But we know that this is not the nature of man. God made man to worship Him, and in the absence of right worship the soul of a man is disordered. This is a disorder than man cannot help but feel, no matter how he may drown it with drink, television shows, pornography, obsessive hobbies, etc. The malaise, bordom, and fatigue of the modern western world springs from sin and from the fact that the lives of men are ordered away from what God intends. Those who are not ready to have a good time in the way advocated by our humble assembly -- namely, by obedience to God's will -- simply will fail, in the end, to have a good time at all.
This connects to the old Mass quite directly. As a pristine and otherworldy form of liturgical worship, a ritual composed by more than committees of overeducated moderns, it can speak past a man's critical apparatus to his heart and soul in a way that the new Mass cannot so easily do. I often think of the businessmen who, in the time before the council were the primary attenders of those famous "22 minute" low Masses -- often made so short so those men could catch a train to work, or in some other way move speedily to the next duty in their state in life. These are mocked as the worst of the old way, but to my mind they show how the priests and people of the unruined Catholic culture of those days understood something that our experts cannot: that those men were *at daily Mass* and wanted to make it a part of their daily lives in a way that few can, or wish to, today. You can get retirees, college kids, and a few others out for a vegetable-dyed stole daily Mass-in-the-round; to get ordinary working men there, you either must demand more, or make it fit into their scheduled lives. The old way did both: it demanded piety, or else the men would not be there; and in return it was adapted to their schedules.
It is men who will return to their faith with the return of the no-nonsense latin Mass of the ages. They will come, each for his own reasons, guided by grace. The ritual, the austerity -- these will attract him in a way that the new ways never can. And if the men will return, the women will follow, and will learn again to take pride in the differentness of their Church, in the learning of their priests, in the piety of their husbands and fathers. More than swallows to Capistrano, the return of the men to the practice of the Faith is what we should most eagerly be awaiting.
go to main page
by Ambrosius @ 10/13/2006 03:13:00 PM
44 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
44 Comments:
A good post, and your picture set off the theme well, too.
Amen. Amen. Amen. Wisdom beyond your years.
Amen.
Very well said indeed. What has been consistently lacking in much of the discussion of the proposed liberalization of the Latin Mass is the power of grace and the truth that it is the Holy Spirit Who has fashioned the immemorial rituals of the Holy Mass. And as you certainly know, all that is really needed for the Holy Spirit to impart His grace is for man, again with the help of grace, to remove the obstacles to that same grace.
I do believe that we will not see throngs of people seeking theTLM,they will stay where they are accustomed to worship.They have for the most part become adjusted to it and comfortable with it.They remind me of people who surround themselves with the finest of silk artificial flowers and adorn their homes with them.But the day will come when they will be persuaded to go out into the garden and behold the splendor of living flowers,.Reluctant at first,they will see them and smell them and fall in love with beauty. I beleive in the upcoming springtime of the church predicted by JPII and Pius XII,but the vehicle of spirituality for this glorious season will be the TLM.Without the TLM we will continue to stagnate. It will require patience and the willingness to celebrate the TLM not as the detractors tell us it was done but how we know it must be done.Our enemy is not the Novus Ordo it is the culture.And it is the TLM that transcends the present culture anto a heavenly one. Our churches will once again be the oasis in the desert they were meant to be.I am certain of one thing -the future is ours.
Spectacular, well done!
If the Latin tongue and the use of bells/smells in the rite of the Mass were all you were looking for (as per your post), then certainly the current rite of the Mass may and does accommodate this.
Unfortunately for you, the Church has instituted Sacrosanctum Concilium, which specifically called for a simpler, and also *dignified* rite of the Mass (although obviously some folks forgot the latter-->but not the Church herself!). I sometimes wonder if a Old Mass goer is in some sense worshipping the feelings he/she gets from environmental stimuli (in other words himself) if he/she is unable to or finds it very difficult to worship God without them.
Rushed Masses are a bit on the absurd side of things in my opinion, and such were generally viewed as abuses; you're the first person I know to propose a "good" reason for them...although I find it difficult that a suit and tie guy could not afford to spend 1-hour at Mass a day, provided it was available without neglecting daily duties.
"I sometimes wonder if a Old Mass goer is in some sense worshipping the feelings he/she gets from environmental stimuli (in other words himself) if he/she is unable to or finds it very difficult to worship God without them."
Johnboy, this is just snide and stupid. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have granted indults for the Tridentine Mass. Were they thereby condoning self-worship? By your standards, why shouldn't the Pope just ban the Byzantine Rite, the Armenian Rite, etc., and have everyone say the Novus Ordo? After all, the only differences are in "environmental stimuli." You used to write better criticisms than this.
As long as we're "wondering," I "wonder sometimes" whether you write in good faith, or just to be a cad.
A good friend of mine is a monk in an Eastern rite monastery here in the U.S. He is Australian, however, and of impeccable Irish stock. He can even still imitate the Irish monsignor of his youth as if he had just heard him just yesterday. He came of age during the Second Vatican Council, and remembers the changes as they happened.
Later, he became involved in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Australia, and seldom attended Western services after that. He said once, when his mother was sick, he returned to the small village where he grew up, and thus had to go to the local RC church on Sunday. His remark, however, was not how much things had changed, but rather how things were EXACTLY the same. The people who were there when he was a child were still in the same pews, with the same look on their faces, and in the same posture. For some reason, when he told me this story, all of the traditionalist impulses just left me. It had occured to me that it all hasn't been the catastrophe that I had once thought. Maybe it all went out with a whimper, and not with a bang, and life went on. People are now Catholic just because. It doesn't really mean anything anymore to most people.
What does grace really do? Does it make people worship in the "true manner"? Is worship a means to an end, or an end unto itself, at least here in via? Does God need us to "do it right"? Look, I am involved here in Berkeley with the Catholic Worker. I wouldn't want to be ten seconds in church with these folks. (I'm an Anglican, at least for now.) But I cannot say that they are any less Christian than I am even if they have the worst liturgical taste in the world (and they all remember the Latin Mass).
I was an SSPX seminarian in a former life. I can sing Gregorian chant from memory until I am blue in the face and recite Mass responses and rubrics to the Breviary in my sleep. But I am beginning to realize that all of my High Church pretensions may be a weakness rather than a strength. Many of the Christians I know do not appreciate these things, and it is not my job to make them understand. The enemy is indeed the culture, and as long as people are complacent, in the same pew with the same sense of routine, that is the real barrier against the growth of Christianity, not the lack of altar cards and fiddle-back chausables.
Pseudo-Iamblichus,
Your post made me a bit sad. I'm now going to be somewhat presumptuous (because, of course, I've never met you and I don't really know that much about you so to some degree I'm shooting in the dark) and tell you what I think. Forgive me if I'm way off base. But this is what strikes me as I read your post.
There are times in life when we realize that something we had thought to be as clear as crystal is in fact cloudy and complicated. Often this happens when some real-life event (or series of events) topples a sort of intellectual house of cards that we have built for ourselves. Particularly when this relates to a cause for which we were fighting, a realization of this kind can be quite deflating. It penetrates our shield of self-righteousness and makes us feel suddenly naked and foolish. It's probably healthy and necessary for us to go through this humbling experience sometimes -- Heaven knows I've had such periods -- but it's also dangerous, because in the disorientation that follows we have to decide which ties to keep and which to break and sometimes we decide wrongly. All of our loyalties are tested simultaneously in the wake of such a disillusionment.
In one sense, a retrospective "I was wrapped up in silly things, and missing what was most important" is almost always an accurate judgment. There is always much more going on in life than we manage to appreciate. (This is, incidentally, the deep insight of that wonderful play, "Our Town".) Traditionalists are perhaps especially prone to insisting that everything should be straightforward and clear-cut, so it's easy to level charges of myopia against them, and the accusation is probably fair much or even most of the time.
As the Apostle said, we see through a glass darkly, and even our most sublime experiences are pale shadows compared to the reality of God. I think it's good and important for us to acknowledge these shortcomings to ourselves. If we just try to suppress all our worries or doubts or complaints, they'll catch up with us eventually. But it's also bad to give up entirely and take comfort instead in soft, indefinite platitudes. This is what I think of as the Woody Allen progression: lots of angst and soul-searching and demanding that life should have real meaning, and in the end settling for a "well, people still seem to love each other and enjoy life. Have a family and make the most of things." I like Woody Allen very much, but no, this is not the way to end things. We may see through the glass darkly, but we aren't utterly blind; we are the children who sit at the Master's table, and we should demand food instead of satisfying ourselves with anesthetics or placebos.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that I feel real sympathy with your sentiments about altar cards and vestments getting in the way. Like anything else earthly, these trappings can become obstacles to real faith, and when you recognize that they are obstacles for you, it's probably better just not to bother too much about them for awhile. But in breaking communion with the Church, might you have moved a bit too far away? You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. God values sincere efforts to worship him, no matter what form that worship takes -- I, at any rate, believe that -- but it doesn't follow that it's a matter of indifference how or in what church we worship. I won't rehearse you a list of reasons why the Church is unique or why liturgy matters, because of course you already know them all. But consider that you can acknowledge complications in life that you fomerly failed to appreciate, without discounting those truths that you did at least partially understand. Don't confuse your own (or other people's) immature grasp of a thing with the thing itself. The power of the Mass can be real, even if the people involved with it have their various foibles... and the problems with, say, Anglicanism, can also be real, even if the folks involved in it are solid and God-fearing folks.
It's easier to dedicate yourself to the pursuit of goodness and truth when you've got a supply of fighting zeal to keep you going. But periods of apathy, doubt, isolation or disillusionment can be a blessing too, since they give us chances to know ourselves better and to show what we really believe. To stick with the Church when it has ceased to console you really means something. And then, when you've hung onto something like that for awhile, you tend to cycle back around, and it starts bringing you joy again.
Again, I'm sorry to say so many personal things when I don't really know you. You're probably older than me, perhaps even a lot older, and I don't mean to patronize you, but your post just sounded to me like the writing of someone who was granted some real insights, but responded by giving up too much. I've been at similar junctures before, so I wanted to say something about it.
This is one of the great challenges of life, no? To be teachable without turning to jelly. Anyway, God bless you.
Johnboy, this is just snide and stupid. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have granted indults for the Tridentine Mass. Were they thereby condoning self-worship? By your standards, why shouldn't the Pope just ban the Byzantine Rite, the Armenian Rite, etc., and have everyone say the Novus Ordo? After all, the only differences are in "environmental stimuli." You used to write better criticisms than this.--Tobias
Oh give me a break. You obviously did not understand my point as your comment has little or nothing to do with it. My point was not the act of worship at the old mass (or the Byzantine, etc.) is "self-worship" but the attitude of individuals who cannot worship or find it difficult to worship God in the absence of such environmental stimuli. Such arguments are sometimes applicable also to Protestants, Evangelicals particularly, who often appear to emphasize overt emotional experiences above authentic prayer. I thought the italics in my comment would help; obviously they did not.
The indult of the old Mass presumes that you are able to worship at the revised rite of the Mass and accept it; not that you find it so repugnant as to not accept it. This is called schism, as many of you enjoy!
After all, the only differences are in "environmental stimuli."--Tobias
My comment was not that the only differences are in the environmental stimuli, but rather my take on Ambrosius' post that such environmental stimuli (and the mysteriousness of the Latin tongue) in the old Mass are to him the over-riding reason the current rite "doesn't cut it." Perhaps my interpretation was incorrect. In any case.
The intelligence and eloquence of posters here stuns me. If it's the result of a Cornell education, then I'm signing up for a degree there.
Johnboy, if you STILL think that 1) that our love for the Tridentine Mass is solely due to Latin and candles and 2) we don't realize that these things can be had in the Novus Ordo, then it can only be due to either your failure to read and think about what we write here (which may be due to sloth) or conscious bad will. I fail to see how anyone after dozens of arguments on these topics could still not get it. I'll let Ambrosius defend himself if he so chooses.
But, in any case, here is what I wrote before I read your latest post: Once again, Johnboy, I bet that Byzantines would find it hard to worship at the Novus Ordo, or even the Tridentine Rite, if it were thrust upon them. There is nothing about being Catholic that says that everyone has to be able to adore God with equal ability in every rite of the Church. That is why there are different rites in the first place. So how can it be schismatic to find it difficult to attend Mass in a different rite?
The Novus Ordo is every bit as much a distinct rite of the Church as the Byzantine, the old Roman/Tridentine Rite (for lack of a better word), Coptic, Armenian, etc. I presume you wouldn't demand that Eastern Rite or Novus Ordo Catholics feel equally comfortable praying and worshipping at the Tridentine Mass, and you wouldn't see that as a sign that these folks "rejected" the Tridentine Mass as "illegitimate." So how can you demand that Tridentine Mass-goers be equally fervent in different rites? . . . without drawing down on yourself the charge of bigotry and snideness?
Look, Johnboy, the Vatican Council II Fathers could only have seen the need for reform of the liturgy if they thought that the people in the pews had a legitimate reason not to be satisfied with the Tridentine Rite (which is actually only the latest incarnation of the old Roman Rite). In other words, people can be dissatisfied with perfectly legitimate rites of the Mass without being schismatic. Otherwise, any change at all would be anathema and the Church would be like the Old Believer schismatics of Russia. Now, some Catholics are dissatisfied with the Novus Ordo and yet admit that it is a valid, licit rite of Mass. Why should they be castigated, when dissatisfaction is what created the Novus Ordo in the first place?
Oddly, for a Novus Ordinarian, you seem to think that one size fits all. Well, to be honest, I'd be happy if I never heard any Eucharistic Prayer other than the Roman Canon again. All of the other Eucharistic Prayers are valid and authorized by the Pope. They just don't rise to the level of the Roman Canon, though. And that doesn't make me a schismatic.
Oh, on another topic, did you see the bit earlier about how Jimmy Akin publicly admitted that the so-called "Feeneyite" position is permitted by the Church and how many of its adherents are in "full" communion with the Church? I've discovered that he has said this twice:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defens
or_fidei/eschatology/index.html
For the link above, search for "Feeneyites." Also, see:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defens
or_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.ht
ml
In the latter article, Akin contradicts himself, saying that the Church teaches one thing officially while permitting people to doubt it privately. This is just stupid. The Church permits the "Feeneyite" position precisely because she has *not* denied it officially.
And before you set up a strawman, yes, I realize that Akin personally opposes the strict interpretation of EENS. That is why an admission from him that this position is permitted by the Church should have some force with you. What does this guy have to gain from misrepresenting the facts?
By the way, I've attended the Divine Liturgy several times at a Melkite Rite parish which used the vernacular for the most part. Many of the features of the ancillary features of the Novus Ordo that I don't like (altar girls, women and miscellaneous laymen in the sanctuary, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Communion in the hand) were absent. Yet it was an alien experience to me nonetheless, and the Eastern-style chanting was unnerving. Yet it is a perfectly legitimate Mass, and I am still in communion with those Melkites. I just don't care to attend Mass in their Rite.
Johnboy,
my take on Ambrosius' post that such environmental stimuli (and the mysteriousness of the Latin tongue) in the old Mass are to him the over-riding reason the current rite "doesn't cut it." Perhaps my interpretation was incorrect. In any case.
This is very, very far removed from being true or an adequate appreciation of my point. I may post on this later, but the mere environmental stimuli are indicative of, but not constituative of, the serious towards worship and duty that are found in the old rite very naturally, but very difficult to find in the new rite. The principle difference is that in the new rite, everything, even the traditional options, are just that, _options_. My Mass for me is the watchword of the day, and it coincides very poorly with the true intent of God's plan for us, which is that every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. We should be in the business of letting Christ mould our sinful souls back into a shape pleasing to Him, not worrying with what environmental stimuli properly occasion pleasant feelings to me.
And I'd like to thank Clara for her reply to pseudo-iamblicus' post, which saddened me in a similar way; her sentiments are my own.
Dear Clara and all,
I thank you for your kind words. They give me much to think about. I am probably not much older than you, but I have probably seen a lot more in my short life to know that things are very, very complex.
It is not as if I have a grudge against the Roman Church. I just feel that we had a bit of parting of ways. I don't pretend to belong to the true Church to the exclusion of all others, and I can admit that I might be going through a phase. However, the theological differences that led me to separtate myself from Rome were brewing for a long time, notably through my experience with Eastern Orthodoxy. This is not the place to describe this process; you are all happy Roman Catholics, and it is neither my task nor my desire to make you doubt your Faith in the Pope of Rome. I simply don't share it anymore.
In the end, however, my break with Rome was consummated very simply: I was in my small town, and there was the Roman Catholic Church and a small Continuing Anglican congregation that met in the old Catholic church in town on Sunday mornings. I went to both for a while, and I stayed in the latter. There was no bitterness, I didn't shake the dust from my feet of the Catholic church. The latter, using the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, was more Catholic and apostolic, and I don't need to describe to you the ceremonies in the former.
For 99% of people in the Catholic Church in that town, my going to an Anglican Church was "no big deal". For 90% of the Vatican Curia, it would be no big deal. My (married) Anglican vicar concelebrated a funeral with the local Roman Catholic priest in the Roman Catholic church. So if these people don't care, why should I? Maybe this is not the theological theory, but this is the reality, like it or not. And this is not going to change.
We live in an ecumenical world, and ecumenism is happening on so many levels. In one way, I will always be a Roman Catholic, but the way the Catholic Church of today worships, prays, and thinks (whether liberal, conservative, or traditionalist) is no longer my cup of tea. It would seem that most of the Roman Church gives me its blessing to leave it in my circumstances, because, in the end, "it's no big deal". And who am I to argue with them?
Pseudo-Iamblichus, at various times 90% and more of the Old Testament Jews turned to the worship of Baal. Very few did not worship the Golden Calf when Aaron set it up. As far as we know, only one of the Twelve attended the Crucifixion. St. Jerome says that "the whole world groaned to find itself Arian." You should know that truth does not depend upon some democratic principle.
Additionally, what do you say to that 1% who do care? I care for the state of your soul, which you seriously imperiled when you joined a heretical sect. What do you say to the remnant?
Lastly, why do you not wish to dissuade us from our "happy Catholicism"? If the Pope really is the Vicar of Christ, then you should care and join his Church. If the Pope is not really the Vicar of Christ, then he is an impious impostor and we Catholics are all deluding ourselves. In that case, you should be zealous in exposing the imposture that Roman Catholicism is. But currently you are neither hot nor cold. This attitude is not charitable, not "Catholic," and not "Apostolic." It is indifferent and lukewarm. This concerns me more than the specific doctrines which you have rejected or adopted. Please consider these points, and I shall keep you in my prayers.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
So how can it be schismatic to find it difficult to attend Mass in a different rite?--Tobias
I never said that. You are confused on another point; and unfortunately spend time arguing something I never stated or meant. My intention was to discuss my *wondering if* such old Mass goers who are unable to attend a Mass lacking in opulent environmental stimuli as being evidence, perhaps, that they worship not God but feelings generated from such stimuli (in other words themselves).
Why should they be castigated, when dissatisfaction is what created the Novus Ordo in the first place?--Tobias
Dissatisfaction? That's a first I've heard. Please read the applicable document to get a first-hand take on the Church's reasons for renewing the Liturgy. This is the Church's understanding of the various rites, by the way:
"Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."
In the latter article, Akin contradicts himself, saying that the Church teaches one thing officially while permitting people to doubt it privately. This is just stupid. The Church permits the "Feeneyite" position precisely because she has *not* denied it officially.--Tobias
Canon Law I believe indicates that a faithful Catholic must accept the non-dogmatic, though "official" interpretations of the teachings of the Church at least implicitly. That means there's a way one could privately hold one thing and publically not comment on it so as not to be explicitly or implicitly in disagreement. This is a dangerous road to be on; and certainly schism is the inevitable result, in my opinion, because schism simply means the refusal to submit to the Holy Father in matters of faith/morals, and disciplines, and of course several Popes have been clear the Feeneyite position is not the official teaching of the Church. Those folks do so at their own risk.
This is very, very far removed from being true or an adequate appreciation of my point. I may post on this later, but the mere environmental stimuli are indicative of, but not constituative of, the serious towards worship and duty that are found in the old rite very naturally, but very difficult to find in the new rite.--Ambrosius
But you do state that such optional "environmental stimuli" are indirectly related. Your primary point then is that the options of the current rite of the Mass are reasons that "sin has triumphed finally, that grace is inoperative, and that modern man must simply be accomodated or he will use his consumer's choice and leave." This is quite a step, isn't it? In any case I beg to differ. The problem is not the options but the abuses of the Mass, which, strange as it may seem, did occur in the old Latin rite of the Mass, too. Therefore, options are not the issue, but options unfortunately an excuse for some disobedient priest or layperson to abuse the liturgy, making it something they want; and therefore making the Mass a individual thing. The Church, particularly Sacrosanctum Concilium, was adament against such abuses.
People only reform things, or change them, or make statements, when they are dissatisfied with something, if only with their own silence. This is a universal principle of human behavior -- change is a sign of discomfort with the status quo. If everything were satisfactory to everyone, then there would have been no Vatican II -- or any other Council, or papal decree -- in the first place.
Theophile,
Thank you for troubling to write that out, but I'm not sure why you'd think that I don't already understand all of that. In fact, my own post contained advice very similar to yours, about perservering in the faith even when it provided no consolation (by which might be understood, no good feelings.)
It's a mistake to come to the faith with specific preconceived notions about how it ought to be making us feel. Indeed, a faith that did match our specifications exactly in this regard should arouse suspicions -- it can't be doing much to transform the soul if you were able to predict in advance exactly how it would affect you. As you say, the sacraments give grace objectively, and this can actually be quite a liberating thought, because you can cease trying artificially to manufacture particular feelings within yourself, and then worrying that you've been rejected by God if the feelings don't come.
Still, you shouldn't shout down anyone who wants even to talk about their feelings with regards to the faith, because they're not irrelevant. We're not Kantians here; we are Christians. The affective side of our nature is fundamental to us, and feelings play an important role both in our motivation and even sometimes in our perception of truth. We don't want to make judgments purely on the basis of emotion, since we know that our will is disordered, but that's why we take steps to bring our emotions into line with our higher purposes. Before going to confession, it's good to read prayers or do other things that will make me feel contrite. If I'm feeling angry or hateful towards someone, I will not receive communion at that time, since I will judge myself improperly disposed towards it. When I see others in pain, I really ought to feel compassion for them, and if I don't, I should judge this as a deficiency on my part, and try to condition myself to feel differently.
You suggested reading saints and mystics. That's funny, because those people talk about feelings all the time. Again, I agree that we can't use our feelings as surefire indicators of truth, because they are disordered; nonetheless, the solution is not to banish them entirely to the realm of the irrelevant, but rather to train them using tools that the Church has given us. Therefore, it surely isn't wrong to talk about them sometimes.
Pseudo-Iamblichus,
Thank you for replying; it was interesting to hear more of your story, though I guess I don't have that much to add to my initial post, except this: you seem to be feeling that you're relatively unique in having come face-to-face with the many complications of sorting through different Christian sects. At any rate, you seem to assume that you stand out against the happy and confident Catholics who contribute to this blog. That may not be as true as you think. None of us are former seminarians, but remember that many of us are converts here, and even the cradle Catholics among us have seen a lot of division within their families regarding religious questions. We all have at least some perspective on this kind of problem.
I don't want to make too many blanket statements about other people's conversions, but I might say a few words about my own. I felt upon becoming a Catholic that a certain harmony, which I had always felt in my life before, was irrevocably shattered. I've never wanted to feel that I was more right than everybody else, most especially when "everybody else" includes people I love and admire tremendously, like my parents, who according to the Catholic church aren't even Christians, despite the fact that it was they who taught me to read the Bible, to pray, and in short, to love Jesus Christ. There are people in my life whom I deem both smarter and wiser than me, who nonetheless seem content to remain in the Mormon faith in which I was raised, and this made it very difficult and confusing for me to sort things out when I began to have a growing conviction that Mormonism might not be true. The rift that opened between me and them when I became Catholic is a source of real grief for me, and there's really nothing glamorous about the endless awkwardness that arises from trying not to embarrass old friends or relatives with references to a faith that they see as disreputable or worse.
I'm not trying to make you feel bad with sob stories, but only to say that I do have some perspective on how complicated things can be. I just think that, in the end, the recognition of complications isn't enough to excuse us from doing our absolute best to identify the truth and live it. But it took me several years of fence-sitting to steel myself for any decisive action, and my shortcomings as a Catholic are still pretty severe, so I'm not in any position to rush anybody else along. Without the slightest bit of contempt or ill feeling, I do sincerely hope that you'll eventually find your way back to Rome.
Theophile,
Thank you for responding to what I have said. However, your description of faith has much more to do with Kierkegaard than it does with traditional Christianity. Do you really think I am assumed into seventh heaven everytime I go to Evensong? Of course not! I have read all of the authors you cited. I have read the Story of a Soul five times from cover to cover, and many more times just in excerpts. What you are talking about is not what she are talking about.
While you say that "feeling has nothing to do with it", you still somehow defend the Latin Mass as opposed to the Novus Ordo. I think you are being inconsitent with your principles, for in spite of any theological defense of the Tridentine Mass you can come up with, they will never outweigh one's necessity to be in obedience to the Holy See in terms of the "noramtive" rites of the Church (the Pauline Missal). In this sense, you have to have Faith in the Novus Ordo, with Eucharistic ministers, Communion in the hand, etc., because to not do so, you would have to be doubt the power of the keys given to St. Peter. Here, "feeling" would have nothing to do with it.
And that is why I am not a Roman Catholic anymore. I don't believe in that power.
Clara,
Thank you for sharing your story. Yes, I realize that the Faith does cause much inner turmoil, family crises and other painful things. If you think I have escaped them, you are mistaken. Roman Catholicism and I drifted apart a long time ago. I was a Byzantine rite monk for two years (still Catholic, but barely) after I was in the SSPX, so maybe I have had "schismatic tendencies" for a long time before I finally left the Roman Catholic Church.
Having been raised in the RC Church, the vast majority of my family is still Catholic. I still pray the rosary with them, and I still even go to church with them sometimes. They don't see me as a pariah, partially because they don't seem to know what the difference is. (It's not as if at every family gathering I break out into "All Creatures Bright and Beautiful".) My mother even came to our church and received Communion. She didn't know the difference. The only reply from my aunt who was with her was, "Yeah, that's how they used to do it when we were kids."
Theologically, then, I do not know why I have to hop on a bus for an hour to go to the indult Mass in Oakland (the place where the local RC bishop puts all of his liturgical trouble-makers) when I can have the same thing in English right down the street. I don't know why I have to suffer by myself trying to find Christian devotions when they sing Evensong every night in the Anglo-Catholic church and I can attend it. For you, this would be "communicatio in sacris". I don't think that is the case, however.
We have enough crosses in life without having to look for more. I have a very open ecclesiology, and I have good reason to have one. If you came to our church, we would give you communion, no quesitions asked. (You probably wouldn't but there's the offer.) If you want to continue to make a big deal out of it, I have to sadly say that that is your perogative.
And maybe I will one day come back to the Roman Catholic Church, but I could never again have an integrist attitude about it. The Pope is just another bishop, maybe with primacy of honor, but still quite fallible. I think your objections to the liturgical practice of 99% of the Roman Church more than proves that.
Johnboy316:
A suit and tie guy finding an hour each day?
Let me explain something to you.
I live in the Washington, DC area and am a Congressional staffer.
I travel 45 minutes to work each morning at 6 AM. I live less than a mile away from my parish. The EARLIEST Mass is at 7 AM.... well after I am at work and engaged in work.
I get home very late at night.... usually between 10:30 PM and 12 AM. This is my regular Monday through Friday.
Now, you might say this is irregular. It isn't. Most politicals in the Executive Branch have similar schedules. The guys stationed at the Pentagon for two years have similar schedules. Honestly, people with this type of schedule could number between 200-250,000 pretty easily.
What I wouldn't give for a quick 22 minute Mass, regardless of whether it was the novus ordo or the tridentine. What I wouldn't give for a Priest who would offer a 5:30 AM Mass. These things used to be more common. I know as I served a 5:30 every Monday through Friday when I was 10. That was 1978, well after the reforms.
Your snideness is noted, and you can put it where the sun doesn't shine. Some of us don't have the choices you have.....
One correction. I should have the 6AM - 10/12 schedule was my regular Monday through Thursday schedule. I usally get home about 7:30 PM on Fridays, though I go in at the same time.
Anonymous, it is a blessing and gives me a some hope to know that there are faithful Catholics such as you in the halls of Congress. Maybe you could get together with other Catholics and petition the bishop for an early Mass for people with work schedules like yours.
Your snideness is noted, and you can put it where the sun doesn't shine. Some of us don't have the choices you have.....--anonymous
I appreciate your comment but it just calls for a response.
First of all, I stated:
"...although I find it difficult that a suit and tie guy could not afford to spend 1-hour at Mass a day, provided it was available without neglecting daily duties."
My point suggest (among other things) that a person making lots of money (aka: suit and tie guy) would be able to take at least an hour off to go to Mass on the basis of him making enough money already. The second point clearly suggests that this presumes one does not neglect their daily duties. Obviously, your situation is covered in my comment.
Secondly, I personally understand the circumstances you are in to some extent. I drive 60+ miles to work, work 8 hours in a private consulting firm doing engineering; which is not a walk in the park. I do not go to daily mass.
In any case my entire point stated I find it *difficult* to believe such circumstances.
Perhaps you're an exception; but always remember you're the one getting paid by taxpayers to shake hands, be a socialite, etc., whereas I actually *work* for my money...hehe.
JohnBoy and Anonymous,
At one time I was a "suit and tie guy" in Manhattan. I was on the 7am train each morning, and got home at 7:30pm. I was able to avail myself of several parishes (in my case St. Patrick's Cathedral), where Mass was celebrated at noon each day. Sometimes that meant eating a cup of yogurt for lunch, but I made it.
Later I was a long distance commuter in Virginia, commuting 50 miles to my office (which I ran)from Richmond to Fredericksburg. I left my house at 7, and arrived home twelve hours later. Again, I was able to get to Mass 2 or 3 times a week to at a nearby parish. Usually this was at noon, but sometimes I would leave home early in order to make it to a morning celebration.
Now I live in Pennsylvania, and work out of my home. Not many folks here commute great distances, but still I sometimes avail myself of a nearby 6:45am Mass, where many good souls are forced to rush out to work directly after Holy Communion. I can also get to Masses at 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, or noon. Once a week there is Mass at 5:00 on Thursdays. In two separate parishes there is a novena plus benediction (where Communion can be received) and confession each week on 7pm on Tuesday and Wednesday nights respectively.
Can't ever get to Church but on Sunday? I don't buy it. And if you can't, you really do work too hard, and it's time to change jobs.
Hmm, that's thought-provoking. I've never even considered going to daily Mass, because the only ones I'd be able to get to are the sort that would leave me more angry and upset than uplifted, and I wouldn't be allowed to receive on the tongue anyway. My schedule definitely isn't too constrained -- on the contrary, 80% of my work at the moment is done from home -- but it just never seemed likely to be too spiritually beneficial. Are there many traditional-minded Catholics out there who go to daily Mass?
Can't ever get to Church but on Sunday? I don't buy it. And if you can't, you really do work too hard, and it's time to change jobs.
When Mass was available at 7pm downstate I went almost every day for approximately 2 years, and also spent some time during the week at Eucharistic Adoration, sometimes doing daily Holy Hours (if you count before + after Mass during weekdays). Unfortunately such daily Mass is not able to be accommodated so easily where my current job is; but Eucharistic Adoration is...just got back w/in the last hour. Also, if daily Mass were important enough to change jobs, then God would provide a job for me. Unfortunately, he has not.
Clara,
I am one of those tradies who lurk in the pews of Novus Ordo churches on weekday mornings. I usually arrive around the Offertory, thereby missing any "good morning" rituals, and leave after my thanksgiving. Receiving Holy Communion is, to my mind, much more important than any nonsense going on in the sanctuary. And if you catch an early morning Mass most people are still too sleepy to bother with goofy stuff: no altar servers, no singing, not much handshaking (in a large church you can distance yourself from your fellow Catholics!) and you can bury your face in your old missal and pretty much ignore whatever else is going on. I do have to receive Communion standing because I have found that kneeling flusters the priest and I've seen more than a few hosts dropped that way. So I stand. But the graces far outweigh any other considerations so I encourage you to take up the practice. You will not regret it!
The priest at my local parish has been known to deny Holy Communion to kneelers. Not sure whether he'd let me receive on the tongue or not; I'm sure he wouldn't like it. But you're probably right that it's worth investigating. I do at least pray the Rosary every weeknight with the Cornell Society for a Good Time, so I don't live an entirely heathen life. And actually, I should be running along for that right now.
Being able to receive Holy Communion far outweighs not being able to receive the Host kneeling or on the tongue. Why deny yourself the grace of the Eucharist?
Oh, on another topic, did you see the bit earlier about how Jimmy Akin publicly admitted that the so-called "Feeneyite" position is permitted by the Church and how many of its adherents are in "full" communion with the Church?--Tobias Petrus
I would like to divert you back to an older post regarding this topic, I just posted a little bit ago regarding Akin stating Feeneyism is a heresy insofar as the DOGMA of Baptism of Desire is concerned:
http://cornell-catholic-circle.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-
youth-languored-limbo-like.html
I do not receive Holy Communion in the hand. I don't disparage others who, if there is no other option, do. But for myself, it would just make me very uncomfortable.
Receiving the Blessed Sacrament in any case greatly intimidates me. I spent years at Mass being forbidden to do it, seeing it as an amazing and miraculous thing from which I was excluded. I still feel sort of amazed, every time, that I'm actually allowed to do it now, and above all I do not want to commit sacrilege by receiving unworthily.
So, I don't receive if I haven't been to confession in the past week or so (and obviously, if I've done anything that I think might be mortally sinful since my last confession), if I'm distracted or angry about something, or if I'm just not feeling sufficiently reverent.
I was catechized in a Latin Mass parish, and taught that it is more reverent to receive on the tongue, in a kneeling position. That seems very right to me for lots of reasons, and though I won't say that it's positively wrong to receive in the hand, I wouldn't be able to compose myself in the right way if I did it; it would feel disrespectful and irreverent to me. I also don't often receive in Novus parishes where I'm not sure whether the priest might scold me for kneeling. Having an altercation with the priest at the altar, with the Body of Christ between us, would be truly horrible, so I receive in parishes where I don't have any anxiety about this -- either Latin Mass parishes, or Novus parishes where I have strong reason to believe that the priest will be cooperative.
Obviously, all of this means that I don't receive all that often -- maybe a couple of times a month. I could probably reorient myself in time so that I no longer felt this kind of anxiety about receiving in the hand, or receiving in a less-than-fully-composed state of mind. But at my present point, I think any way I might go about doing that would involve deliberately undoing the sensibilities that St. Michael's helped to foster, and essentially telling myself that receiving the Blessed Sacrament isn't such a big deal. I don't know whether that would be a good idea, even for the grace of receiving more often.
People have different takes on this, but there's mine.
I have received Communion in many different Novus Ordo churches over the years but never once been denied reception on the tongue.
Christ isn't waiting for you to be perfect to give Himself to you, so why should you deny Him His desire to be one with you?
It's happened in the parish closest to my apartment, to a friend of mine. It also happened in a totally different parish to my fiance, about a year ago. It happens. At Cornell companions of mine have fought battles over kneeling for quite a long time, though I'm not sure whether anyone was actually denied at the altar or not. I can't deal with Mass becoming the grounds for a protest every week; it destroys every rightly-ordered impulse that might allow me to receive my Lord with joy. But sometimes you have to go to Masses like that to fill your obligation. So I just don't receive under those circumstances. It makes for an incentive to get to friendlier parishes more often, and it makes me much more fervantly grateful for those opportunities that I do get to receive reverently.
For what you say about Christ not waiting for us to be perfect... no, I admit it's a tough question, but even if we don't have to be perfect there are some states in which reception of the Sacrament would be sacreligious, and we can't confidently identify which those are. There's something to be said for trusting God to make you clean enough to receive him, and there's also something to be said for not risking sacrilege lightly, and for reinforcing your reverence for his Body by not receiving him except when you can do it respectfully and gratefully.
Throughout the history of the Church you can find a wide variety of views on this subject, and also a wide variety of practices, from the eras in which most Catholics were terrified of receiving Communion and basically only did it once a year, to the present time, when people who haven't been to confession for fifteen years will wander into church with their adulterous lovers just long enough to get their Host and leave. Both of us, I guess, fall somewhere between these extremes, though not in precisely the same place, and there are many things to be said for different ways of drawing the line...I'm not claiming to have the perfect formula, but only to have fairly sound reasons for what I do. But I do think we should be wary of just going along with the current everybody-get-in-line culture. It seems highly likely that many, many, many Catholics are receiving the Blessed Sacrament sacrilegiously in parishes all over the world today.
I'm very willing to believe that people who are holier than I are able to filter out some of the extraneous stuff and receive reverently under all sorts of nonideal conditions. I'm willing to see that as something to work towards, and as I said, I never judge others negatively for receiving more often than I do (provided of course that I know them to be practicing Catholics etc.). Give me some time... I've only been a Catholic for less than 18 months!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"there are some states in which reception of the Sacrament would be sacreligious, and we can't confidently identify which those are"
Unless one is in a state of mortal sin one may confidently receive the sacrament. If one is unsure about a mortal sin one may give oneself the benefit of the doubt (on the grounds that to commit mortal sin one must have full knowledge and give consent).
In the old rite one is actually absolved from all venial sins at the absolution; in the new rite one asks Christ for absolution and offers prayers in reparation. Obviously the former is better but the latter is not ineffective.
And even if the entire world were receiving sacrilegeously that would be no reason for you to abstain. This - above all else - is your means of salvation!
And you bring up a point regarding one of my pet peeves: the filing out to receive Communion - even in traddie parishes - leads to too much concern about who is receiving and who is not. How many wives are checking up on their hubbies? How many moms are checking up on their kids? Not good; far better to return to the old practice of "first come, first served".
Gotta run; I have 2 kids being confirmed tonight and still have lots stuff to attend to!
Vicki,
As Clara says, there are many points of view on this issue of receiving Communion frequently and during New Masses. In this instance, though I am an NO cradle-Catholic and she a convert, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Clara. We certainly shouldn't reject Pope St. Pius X's call for Frequent Communion, but we need to be honest about our interior dispositions (which govern the graces received) during the New Mass - especially as it is said in Ithaca! When there is any danger of fighting over the sacrament, or if the distribution smacks of irreverence, I bow out as well.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrance has an interesting section in Christian Perfection on Holy Communion here y'all might enjoy.
Congratulations on your kids' confirmation! That's exciting.
For the record, I don't go checking anybody's record. But I went to Notre Dame, and I only observed -- this is before I was even Catholic, so it wasn't that big of a deal to me then, but it still seems very true -- that very few people seem to go to confession (a number of people told me point blank that they hadn't done so for years) and yet VIRTUALLY EVERYONE gets in line to receive without a second thought. Again, I make no judgments about any particular person, who for all I know may claim not to go to confession for reasons of bravado, while in fact they sneak away to confess practically every week. But those general trends seem worrying.
Myoptic or not followers of the Orthodox/Traditionalist Latin rite Liturgy formed organically almost two millinium ago and evolved over 1600 yrs know there is something intrinsically WRONG with the so-called novus ordo missae of Pope Paul 6th. It is touchy/feely and oh so protestant, oh so calvin Luther and Cranmer, it is not really universal in that it was invented by a Freemason going by the name of Archbishop Annabale Bugnini and a coterie of both schismatic and heretical protestant "advisors" and forced on 1.5 billion Catholics by a most dragonian liberal pope of modernity Paul 6. AND YOU WONDER WHY CATHOLICS HAVE HAD HELL TO PAY FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.Is it possible that the King of the Universe is finally leading his one and only church out of the wilderness-----SHALOM
Warm greetings in the True Christmas Spirit!
I hope all is well, you seem very knowledgeable. I read through your blogs--very sharp indeed! Do you have a Doctorate in Divinity or Philosophy?
Anyhow, I was wondering if you could give some priceless advice. I am thinking of buying a some good old Catholic theology books for some family members and loved ones, and well, I recently received an advertisement for this very interesting book called "Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion of non-Catholics" by Mr. William J. DeTucci.
I was wondering if you have seen any book review on this book? I could not find anything on the author. It seems the book talks about the Role of Vatican II in the Modern World and how some Traditionalists have resisted many of the Modernistic teachings of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and the New Mass, as opposed to the old Latin Tridentine Mass. However, I also recently read Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio ( www.vatican.va), which seems to be give the Liberty of "Open Communion" to so-called Traditional Catholic Groups who dissent from Vatican II, i.e. Marcel Lefebvre's SSPX, Mark Pivarunas' CMRI, Clarence Kelly's SSPV, Br. Michael Dimond's Most Holy Family Monastery, the various Saint Benedict Centers, Jason Spadafore's Raphael Society, Patrick Taylor's Society of the Virgin Mary, and so many other Independent Bishops at Large)--all who promote Intercommunion Latin Mass Ritual, of course! I think the Spirit of Vatican II is really being recognized now by many of the Traditionalists who once followed Bishop Lefebvre in resisting Vatican II Conciliar Reforms, but since the Motu Proprio Latin Mass Ecumenism has been widely promoted and it has been "well received" by many of these same various Traditionalists Sects and also by many Liberal Bi-Ritual Bishops who offer both the Latin Mass and Ecumenical Modern Liturgies.
However, breaking the rule of judging a book by its cover, and only peaking its table of contents, it seems to me this book is an itchy reaction to this Neo-Ecumenism that both Greek and Latin Churches have been involved with. Not sure if you have read the book, or know of some theologian who has written a review? Here is the link to the contents that I browsed:
http://www.lulu.com/content/1431544
and also here:
http://www.vladcatholic.com
I would most greatly appreciate any book review that you or a theologian has done. This book seems to have positive merit in as much it claims to be "a Compendium of Roman Catholic Doctrine on the subject of Intercommunion with non-Catholics. This book produces the overwhelming theological consensus for the Dogmatic Teaching condemning Intercommunion with non-Catholics, putting together a treasury of Sacred Scriptures, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, and Popes who have written on the matter."
However, I just wanted to verify that before I make my last minute shopping for this Christmas & New Year Season.
May God bless you all!
Kind regards,
Patty
Post a Comment
<< Home