Posted on 03/07/2005 10:01:29 AM PST by Cato1
Yearning for the Latin Mass
by Kevin Starr
Courtesy of the San Francisco "Examiner" (Copyright SF Examiner 1978)
A goodly number of pseudo-reformist movements these days consists of powerful elites telling the majority of people what to do. Elites grab control of an agency, an institution, a political body, then proceed to legislate without regard to majority opinion. Take the matter of the Latin Mass. A recent Gallup poll shows 64 percent of American Catholics prefer the return of the Latin Mass.
Sixty-four percent! That's a solid majority, for sure! Among Catholics with a college education, the figure jumps to 73 per-cent-nearly a two-thirds majority. Roughly 10 percent of the Catholics polled had no opinion. Only 26 percent were opposed. Splitting the difference of the no-opinion group, we come up with the fact that roughly 80 percent of American Catholics prefer the return of the oldstyle, Tridentine Latin Mass. After 15 years, in other words, of guitar music, pseudo-folksongs, banal translations, hand-clapping, the kissing of perfect strangers during the offertory in an orgy of dishonest sentiment, most Catholics yearn for the dignity and mystery of the Latin Mass. We've had circus masses with clowns on the altar, where they played "Send in the Clown" during the offertory. You were supposed to leave Church, I suppose, feeling glowy all over. We've had radical masses where the consecration was ushered in with a folksy protest song by Pete Seeger. We've witnessed with-it priests in psychedelic vestments (most of them on the verge of resigning the priesthood) consecrate loaves of sourdough French bread and Gallo Hearty Burgundy. Also used: Ry-Krisp, Wonder Bread (for that homey feeling), Syrian bread (for that archaeologically exact feeling), and Kasanoff's Jewish Rye (for that feeling of ethnic brotherhood). Of late an English-language liturgy of heroic banality has been forced on us, rivaling the Unitarian worship service for sheer avoidance of Catholicity of sentiment, reference or symbolism.
What is the result of all this tasteless disregard for the necessity of aesthetic transcendence in liturgy? What is the result of telling two-thirds of the Roman Catholics in America that they cannot, must not, worship in the manner of their youth: that the way the Church prayed for more than a thousand years was now forbidden? On Holy Thursday I stood in St. Ignatius Church with a sparse and pitiable crowd and tried as much as possible to attend to a liturgy stripped of its transcendence and grandeur. We were, say, a congregation of no more than 300-mainly older women. Twenty years ago the Church would have been filled to its 1,500 seat capacity. Now on Sunday mornings in the Catholic parishes of San Francisco, you could set up an indoor volleyball game in the center of the Church without bothering the sparse gathering of aged parishioners.
All knowledge of God, St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, is by analogy-with the exception of infused contemplation and certain rare forms of mystical prayer. What St. Thomas means is that God is unknowable in Himself. He is eternal and transcendent. We are finite. We try to bridge the gap between God's awful majesty and our own insecure finitude in a variety of ways-prayer, contemplation, good works, and above all else, through sacramental worship. According to Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and responsible Protestant Episcopalian belief, the celebration of the Eucharist is our most powerful link with the Godhead. It recreates the Last Supper of Jesus Christ and Christ's death on Calvary in a way that is at once profoundly symbolic and profoundly true. In reference, then, to St. Thomas' statement about knowing God through analogy, the Eucharist-called the Mass by Roman Catholics-constitutes our most daring flight towards the Godhead, and Almighty God's most generous intersection with us-through the imminent presence of His Son Jesus Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. According to Catholic belief, the Mass recreates the grand drama of Calvary. It is not a hootenany. It is not a touchy-feely Esalen session designed to make you feel tingly and sincere all over your body.
It took the Latin Church 500 years to evolve a worship service equal to this awesome, compelling leap to the Godhead through die risen, eucharistic Christ. For a thousand years Catholics prayed this way at Mass. In the 16th century Council of Trent, this 1,000 year-old Mass was standardized, codified, made the norm of the Universal Church. Another 400 more years went by-400 years of dignified, compelling worship. In great cathedrals of Europe, the Latin Mass was celebrated by archbishops and cardinals in splendid robes, accompanied by orchestras and trained choirs; in jungle outposts, it was celebrated by sweat-stained missionaries, accompanied by prayers in a thousand different tongues. But wherever it was celebrated-in cathedrals in ancient abbeys, in frontier parishes, in jungle out-posts, it was the same Latin Mass. Every Catholic over 35 in America grew up to its rich cadences. We followed its intricacies in our missals. We bowed our heads in awful silence as the priest bent over the host and the chalice, intoning the ancient words of consecration.
The day the Latin Mass was outlawed by the elitists, the day 80 percent of the Catholics of America were told they could no longer worship in the manner their ancestors worshipped since time immemorial, I was having dinner in New York with another Catholic-novelist Anthony Burgess. "In 10 years time Catholic churches will be empty," Burgess said. "For when you destroy the Mass, you destroy the faith. We English Catholics know this. We literally went to the stake for the Latin Mass."
Anthony Burgess was right. The elite reformers destroyed the Latin Mass. Now the churches are empty. Now no one believes.
Btw, I should've noted: It's been a long time since I've seen you around these parts. Dont know where've you been, but it's good to see you back. (Unless it's because you have a bad reason for having too much time on your hands.)
My understanding of the elipsis, only from seeing it reprinted, is that it notes that the Peter the Roman may have been an add-on.
Don't know if you noticed it or not, but this article dates back to '78.
I am certainly no scholar and in no way claim to be one.
And we argee that Basil was not lying or just some guy given to wild exageration but that he was not speaking of all the bishops.
What I see when I read this stuff is a systematic break down its like a slow motion car crash.
Every descission and every new doctrine that was created and I might add many with the best of intentions -- create a whole new series of questions that instead of stregthening and bringing consolidation they diluted the substance of God.
Let me make a case and point with Origen Comentary on the Gospel of John Book 1
Origen in 230 AD 3. In the Spiritual Israel the High-Priests are Those Who Devote Themselves to the Study of Scripture. (In a way Origen is arguing that the priesthood below is the firstfruits – virgins without guile without blemish – these were made fleshly traits whereas they are spiritual traits for who is without sin? I must comment on the effect of plucking the firstfruits and making them priests stops their growth from the vine that they were to be left in place for the local church and community – this circumvents believers to minister in their local Jerusalem their local Samaria and as the grace and power grows in them unto the utter most parts of the earth. But instead the church has a continual drain on those within who are hungry for God, and thus the local church is deprived from any benefit and instead what is most precious is scattered and hid.) But what is the bearing of all this for us? So you will ask when you read these words, Ambrosius, thou who art truly a man of God, a man in Christ. and who seekest to be not a man only, but a spiritual man.5 (This is probably a veiled reference to becoming baptized in the Spirit) The bearing is this. Those of the tribes offer to God, through the levites and priests, tithes and first fruits; not everything which they possess do they regard as tithe or first fruit. The levites and priests, on the other hand, have no possessions but tithes and first fruits; yet they also in turn offer tithes to God through the high-priests, and, I believe, first fruits too. The same is the case with those who approach Christian studies. Most of us (current failing experience of his day) devote most of our time to the things of this life, and dedicate to God only a few special acts, thus resembling those members of the tribes who had but few transactions with the priest, and discharged their religious duties with no great expense of time. But those who devote themselves to the divine word and have no other employment but the service of God may not unnaturally, allowing for the difference of occupation in the two cases, be called our Levites and priests.
(Origen in his day of 200 -230 AD roughly 100 years after the death of the Apostle John, Origen speaks of the rise of a priesthood and high priests within the church devote themselves to the study of scripture and the service of God for the rest of the people. And because of the lack of spirituality and dedication of the common believer that they have adopted a Levitical order to deal directly with God for the common believers they are the churches Levites or priests – note also the lack of the mention of Apostle and Prophet in this equation for as the gifts became rare so the ministration of these higher offices.)
And those who fulfil a more distinguished office than their kinsmen6 will perhaps be high-priests, according to the order of Aaron, not that of Melchisedek. Here some one may object that it is somewhat too bold to apply the name of high-priests to men,
( Origen here is saying that while the concept of priests for the people was already set in place, the concept of an order of priests for the priests themselves and their subsequent lack of spirituality and devotion was not universally accepted among in the church at that time)
when Jesus Himself is spoken of in many a prophetic passage as the one great priest, as7 "We have a great high-priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." But to this we reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about the Christ, "Thou8 art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.
(So Origen flat tells us that they have re-established the order or Aaron within their ranks. And that the Church had passed from every believer being a priest unto God -- to kingdom having a representational priesthood)
So we take this into account and see how somethings progresssed afterwards.
Now a take into account this written by Orien in the same book a little later
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Then He says to His disciples,124 "Ye are the light of the world," and "Let your light shine before men." Thus we see the Church, the bride, to present an analogy to the moon and stars, and the disciples have a light, which is their own or borrowed from the true sun, so that they are able to illuminate those who have no command of any spring of light in themselves. We may say that Paul and Peter are the light of the world, and that those of their disciples who are enlightened themselves, but are not able to enlighten others, are the world of which the Apostles were the light.
Origen is telling us that there has been a decay of spirtuality between the Apostles that died off [John 90-100 AD] only 100 years earlier. Origen is saying that what the apostles had was unique that they were it was non transferable non refillable and subsequently the light is dimishing with every transferance.)
(The last point is also meaningful He says the Apostles were the light but their disciples and followers and I beelvie he himself in this are not the light but of the world. that would seem to say they are earthly and carnal.)
But the Saviour, being the light of the world, illuminates not bodies, but by His incorporeal power the incorporeal intellect, to the end that each of us, enlightened as by the sun, may be able to discern the rest of the things of the mind. And as when the sun is shining the moon and the stars lose their power of giving light, so those who are irradiated by Christ and receive His beams have no need of the ministering apostles and (NT) prophets -- we must have courage to declare this truth -- nor of the angels; I will add that they have no need even of the greater powers when they are disciples of that first-born light. To those who do not receive the solar beams of Christ. the ministering saints
(What origen is saying here is that there are people who receive revelation from Christ himself and need not any teachers -- these are not visions but spiritual understanding -- he says it takes courage to admit that there are those living who as christ said: "walk in the spirit" The greater powers are the levital priesthood and the priesthood above the priesthood. By this day Origen is telling us the church has lost its way and they can't find their way back -- God's power has lifted so they are filling in the gaps with programs and clergy. __ but he hold that there are those who hear from God that are hard wired into God and they bypass the whole system.)
Do afford an illumination much less than the former (Christ himself); this illumination is as much as those persons can receive, and it completely fills them
In the Gospels and the Epistles this level is not saints this was the normal state of being for all beleivers. It is only as it beomes watered down and corrupted that it disappears
Now if we take one more step closer to the the apostles in the writings of Justin Martyr in 170 AD we can see something tanglible that is lost.
Consider now the words of Justin Martyr 160 AD one of the foremost authorities in the Church of his day. "For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that the gifts formerly among your nation (Israel) have been transferred to us (The church).
Justin Martyr dies in 170 AD he was one of the last teachers in the Church that was taught by people that were actually taught by the apostles themselves (Origen was not) So Justin here is speaking with Trypho the head of a Jewish Synagogue in Rome. Justin Martyr is saying that this transference of the Holy Spirit ie the gifts of the Holy Spirit; etc. from Israel to the church is one of the most important signs that God has rejected Israel and taken for himself another people – the church.
Say what you will but since John the Baptist and Jesus Israel and the church have had no prophets. This has continued for over 1970 years.
So by what authority did Justin Martyr come up with the astonishing doctrine that the spirit of the prophets and signs and wonders of the prophets were the proof that God had rejected Israel as his bride and selected in her place the church?
Acts 2:14-18 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words --This Is That -- which was spoken by the prophet Joel:" And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath:
What was Peter talking about when he said This Is That?
Acts 2:1-12 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?"
So by the time of Origen the this is that had become the once was.
You don't have to respond you need to mull these things over and read the works cited and take your knowlege of what has happened in the US with the Constitution and see what has happened 200 years later and see men as men not as evil but just trying the best they can to save what once.
So where does that leave us?
And here in northeastern NYS, we have a full church and no priest. Instead, we have priests who take turns traveling to various parished in the region. Masses have been severely cut in number.
parishes
By comparison, you might well prefer Peter, Paul, & Mary - compared to the wretched drivel which passes for music in the average parish church of a Sunday morning.
The article was writtein in 1978. At that point the liturgical revolution was well on its way, having fired the first destructive salvos in the mid60s.
While there was some child sex abue occuring before this date, the tidal wave of filth was growing exponantially - and would not make the papers until the mid 90s. So, at that point - 1978 - essentially nobody knew of the depth and extent of the corruption which was consuming the clergy.
People started leaving the pews in slowly increasing numbers in the mid-60s, when the changes in the mass began. that exodus has not slowed, but has grown over the years - to the point that folks are literally fleeing the pews, due to the recent uncovering of the sex scandals.
This process has extended over a period of 40 years.
I will address this more in a bit but I had to address a few points now:
>> I must comment on the effect of plucking the firstfruits and making them priests stops their growth from the vine that they were to be left in place for the local church and community – this circumvents believers to minister in their local Jerusalem their local Samaria and as the grace and power grows in them unto the utter most parts of the earth. <<
The priests offer their lives as a sacrifice for the benefit of the Church, in imitation of Christ. In doing so, their sacrifice will cause SPIRITUAL results, yielding still more vocations and helping angels conquer demons through prayer. You are thinking materialistically, not spiritually.
Very good points made! I have observed what you speak of - in reagrd to older folks who have accepted the changes, and even have grown to "like" them.
This explains so many funerals where the 70 somthing person who is planning it for a deceased relative requests teh best of the music of Marty Haugen, the St. Louis Jesuits, etc.
They have forgotten the past.......as if it were erased from their memory - having been subtly taught that old = bad, and new = good.
I think its a bit of a stretch to say that posting jack Chick is taking his word over the words that christ said in the Gospels.
Constantine in my mind was a evil man and not a Christian. Christian meaning Christ-like. I have read he executed 3000 christians for differing beleifs See I was born a Lutheran and I have read luther's writings where he boasts of horrible corrupt things luther in someways is comparrible to Saddam he boasts of killing 100,000 and the lutherans has theri own inquisition that in a single city this guy that boasted he read the bible cover to cover 365 times killed 20,000 heretics -- see now I only ran into this stuff for the first time about four months ago and if you look back some post on Luther you will see me comment on it and post stuff and the FR Lutherans said its fake it made up by our enemies but He wrote these things and its recorded in secular records that they had control of.
On the issue of the Church I see Aa physical natural church in the bible and I see a spiritual church not made with hands and as cited on another post in the writings of Origen he cites the same and I dentifies he and all in the church of his day as part of the natural earthly church and he lets it be known they do not know the way any more in his day to become part of the spiritual church on earth,
I cannot deny that what you observe is true.......that the evidence of the "decay" is not "everywhere - to use your terms.
But please follow me on this........what you are observing does not show the whole picture. Adn I should note that I have seen both aspects of it in different parts of the country.
Let me cite the example of the Archdiocese of NY. Nobody can deny the white flight which has occurred in the urban center for some 40 years. Parishes in formerly working & middle classe nsighborhoods which had thousands in the pews in the 60s, now have congregations of 300. Why?
Because the congregation has either died off or moved to the suburbs which surround NYC. The suburban churches are full on Sundays - many of the Urban ones are not. But this is not for lack of people living in the urban centers......rather it is because they are non-believers....unchurched. They do not believe in anything - except their wallets and genitals. They are not interested in Christ, and the Catholic clergy have shown no interest in converting them.
So, the urban churches grow empty as their congregations have left, and have not been replaced - by anybody. The huge influx of illegal immigrants from traditionally Catholic countries has not helped - except in a few parishes. Most of these peoples simply do not go to mass. Those who do will be a temporary phenomenon, as they will not populate the neighbodhood for a generation or more, as did other ethnic groups.
Now, let's go to your suburban churches. They are populated by those who have fled the older urban areas - either to raise families, or to retire. The latter group is currently (and rapidly) dying off. The former group will not grwo to any great degree.......due to a lowered white birthrate due to late marriage, abortion, and contraception.
And as to their children? We all know that the overwhelming majority of young kids do not go to church (unless dragged by mom & dad) much after Confirmation. Additionally, suburbs are transitory in nature. The youth will grow up, leave the homw, and 90% will not return to dwell in the neighbodhood where they were raised.
So, what you are observing are aspects of a temporary phenomena. The congreagtions of the NO churches - all over - will continue to shrink, if "these shadows go unaltered".
You might also believe that if you attended the average NO church. You cant talk to the parish DRE....the lectors, greeters (ushers), EEMs, CCD ladies, and the others who might as well be wearing "I Love LIturgy" t-shirts.
You have to talk to the ones who are not making a spectacle of themselves. From the old lady telling her beads, to the quiet young couple. ASk them - they will let you know - if even subtly, that the TLM would be welcome.
Also, ask the folks who have voted with their feet and stay home. They are not all lazy - or devoid of faith. Many are just tired of waging a losing battle with no ammunition.
They will also tell you that they would welcome a return to the TLM.
Don't ask the people who are re-arranging deck chairs on the sinking Titanic if they like the iceberg - or are aware of its existance........much less its impact.
Had I seen that comment I would have deleted it because it was from another converstation where I was stressing tha in protestant fundamentalist churches that when ever a young person or member of the church becomes effective as a beeliver in prayer in bible study and in talking to others they do not keep them or use them in the church they instead ship them off to bible school and they send them to Venus. So that in these churches they never are able to develope a core group of beleivers to do something -- instead the pews are filled with babes the do nothings and the elderly.
There are reasons for this and I beleive it is mostly due to an in experianced priesthood that can not really explain with any depth what they beleive and why they beleive it other than I was taught that this is so.
Anyway you are absolutely correct I was think carnally about the fruit plucked but really truly if we are hard wired into christ it doesn't matter where here is.
Ping!
I'll quibble only with you saying "The congreagtions of the NO churches - all over - will continue to shrink" because you qualified it with "NO." There is no such church as the No Church. There is only the Church. Calling it the "NO Church" is professing a schism which does not exist. SSPX Is not a basis for qualifying that statement, not because they are schismatic, but because they are insignificant in size to justify qualifying the "Church" with the adjective "NO."
Yes, SSPX has grown. Protestants have witnessed 1000 times when an insignificantly small new denomination starts up, it's growth looks impressive. The act that there are 200 million people who are more comfortable with Latin Mass, and the SSPX has brought over several thousand of them does not impress me that the SSPX is the future of the Church.
Call it what you will, but I was not in any way making a reference to the SSPX. Why do you have to do that?
I dont care what we want to call the institutional structure of the....the "church"......"post-conciliar church"........it really does not matter.
IN using the term "NO", I am referring to the regular Novus Ordo Church. I am not referring to the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP Indult masses, nor independant chapel. All of these groups would style themselves as being Roman Catholic, and as adhering to/professing the traditional faith of the church.
AS a sociologist, I would lump these all together as various flavors of "Traditionalism" in Catholicism, as compared to the regular institutional NO Catholic Church.
By use of that term, I am simply trying to make a distinction - to qualify WHOM I am referring to. That is a lot different from saying "who is better".
Thus, in the use of that term, I have clarified whom I am referring to - in my observations of mass going trends.
I refuse to get dragged into another fruitless "SSPX discussion". I will however state that the future of the Church does indeed lie in those who seek out and follow Tradition.
I when through the posts and found a few I missed
St. Vincent of Lerins: On the Christian Faith, Heresy and Interpreting the Scriptures Chapter II.
This wass interesting as well.
On chance I posted some stuff from Origen that covers some of what you posted.
I am tired of the fight, tired of the debates. I prefer the TLM, actually I would think the 65 missal with TLM rubrics would be ideal, even a reverent NO where there are no altar girls, no EMHCs and the altar rails are used retains(such as Assumtion Grotto in Detroit) a large amount of Catholics herritage.
But that said, at this point, I just want to retreat into a TLM or quasi tradional NO and try to work to sanctify my soul and help other Catholics see the beauty of traditional liturgy, but not by venom, but attracting though though the reverence and solid theology.
What is ironic is from what I understand, in 78, it still wasnt difficult then to find a parish that used altar rails, EMHCs still werent the norm, of course altar girls were still banned and there were few female lectors, its sad how far downhill its gone since then.
The National Review Board shows a spike in sex abuse cases after Vatican II. The fact that most of these priests may have been ordained before the Council is not particularly relevant. It was the relaxed moral climate that the New Church introduced that created the debacle.
John Goeghan not only was allowed to become a well-known activist for NAMBLA in the postconciliar atmosphere, for instance, but he was not in any way punished for having abused around 130 boys. Instead, Cardinal Law gave him glowing letters of recommendation--though his dossier included the rape of a four-year-old and countless other atrocities. In 1995, knowing full well the monstrousness of this man's character, Cardinal Law wrote, "Yours has been an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness." Yet Geoghan alone cost the archdiocese 10 million dollars--and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Two-thirds of all bishops for over three decades covered up the most incredible injustices and crimes. In the face of all this, the Pope defended the bishops. It is telling that he refused Law's resignation when it was first offered--and Law went on to try to face his critics down. Finally he resigned--and was given a comfortable sinecure by the Pope. So much for discipline in the New Church.
How can you not say the Council was not responsible for this? Nothing like it had ever happened before in the preconciliar Church. Sure there were scandals--but mostly of priests running off with women or hitting the bottle. The ratio of straights to gays was nowhere as bad as it is now--and most of the homosexuality was kept under tight wraps. After the Council it was assertive and blatant and open--with predictable results. The scandals increased exponentially.
How can you not say=How can you say
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.