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.
Put simply, we need to return to Tradition and its treasured values, its teachings and, yes, liturgy. Not out of a motivation for nostalgia but out of respect for Almighty God and the sacredness and principles embodied in the Rite of Ages, Missal of 1962.
Thanks again for the ping and message on this, the commemoration day, of St. John of God.
Most worthy of repeating, as many times as it takes to make people understand.
That is not true. All these rituals are part of the WORSHIP given to God. Remember how God in the Old Testament gave specific commands on how priests would offer Sacrifice and clean themselves, etc... He is not against ceremonies or rituals as long as their end is to worship God. The Apostles and the early Christians had rituals, too. Go to a Roman Catacomb and you will see and LEARN the REAL Christian thought about liturgical ceremonies. Besides, look at those who have claimed to not be subject to reituals and ceremonies, (Protestants) and have put their entire focus on the Bible and Jesus, or so they say, and you will see where they ended up. Jesus does remain the same, but did they?? Hmm
Welcome to FR!
"Those who pay attention, and for whom the Mass is truly a Celebration of Christ's Sacrifice, Death and Resurrection would likely be happy with either, though some may like the Latin more than the vernacular."
It's true that it is the same Sacrifice, but it's not just a matter of paying attention. Just read and compare a Missal and a Missalette, you will not get the same impression of the Mass just from the way it is said and the wording of the prayers. For this to happen, it will need someone with a very very very strong faith AND that he know what the Church really teaches about the Mass: this is not very much likely to be found in the US among most people who attend the New Order of the Mass, not even among many priests.
Also, there is something more to the use of Latin instead of the vernacular than just that Latin is a different language. You make it sound as if returning to Latin only would be an oppression, or that it wasnt a good idea all along. The use of Latin only is in no way an obstacle to becoming a Saint; just look at al the Saints, especially St. John Vianney... Latin was not his strong suit and yet he became the Patron Saint of Parish priests. However,all the obstacles at many New Order Parishes can be real obstacles.
I think what you say is true. I attended a major eastern seminary in mid-eighties. The seminarians from the NY Diocese, like myself, were far more conservative and traditional, so we stuck together.
Not at all. It will take some re-education of Catholics before Latin will be accepted generally. 40 years ago, it was not unusual to see Latin taught in public as well as Catholic Schools. There was a more general knowledge of the language among folks than there is today. It would be a drastic change, and it would be difficult for people to accept if it were changed overnight. Having a Latin Mass available for one of the Masses would be a good start.
I agree that modern translations leave a LOT to be desired. Many are inane, and just not conducive to spirituality. We complained forcefully when an Associate in our Parish took it upon himself to have the lectors start using an translation of the Scriptures from the pulpit that did not match the Missalette. We sent copies of an article to the Pastor and the Associate mentioning that that particular translation (from Canada) was not approved. We also complained because our daughter was just beginning to read, and we wanted her to be able to follow the readings in the Missalette, which she couldn't do if the lector was reading something different. Those unauthorized readings stopped immediately.
This may be very stupid question, but how do we, as lay people, do anything (practical measures besides prayer)about this nightmare in our church?
I told my wife last night that I am just so frustrated. I can't stand it anymore, am just sick of all these evils (Mahonyisms, etc).
Yeah, I know we can divert our money elsewhere, but guess what, the NO establishment thrives from the deep pocketed gray haired liberals. Trads are not stereotypically rich you know.
Organizations like the SSPX and the FSSP are priestly groups. So, where are the lay movements? It's not enough for laity to keep tradition alive in their homes. How do we directly call up masses of laity, circumventing the bully pulpits of the NO establishment? Pun intended.
When does the trench warfare stop and the real battle start?
Modernists are clever. They use the same words as traditional Catholics--but they change the denotations. When the Novus Ordo speaks of "sacrifice", it is a celebration of praise and thanksgiving in the Protestant fashion. This is why the Novus Ordo is so congenial to Protestants who have no problem with that in their liturgy. But traditional Catholicism insists the sacrifice of the Mass must be primarily propitiatory--a re-presentation of Calvary's sacrifice to the Father--something Modernist liturgists strongly reject. When they speak of sacrifice at all they mean that of praise and thanksgiving only--with their primary emphasis on the memorial meal aspect--all of which Trent rejected.
It is true the General Instructions for the New Missal includes the phrase "propitiatory sacrifice." But this was a change that resulted after the first version was published and created scandal among traditional theologians around the world. It had made clear the primary focus of the New Mass was the memorial meal and not propitiatory sacrifice at all--which was from the Catholic perspective open defiance of Trent. So there were hurried cosmetic corrections made to the General Instructions, with appropriate language inserted, to give them a more traditional Catholic-sounding cast. But the changes never affected the text itself. In fact, the New Mass remains Protestant in its theology.
There is only one way--reject the Novus Ordo and attend traditional Catholic Masses only--wherever they are celebrated. Join the traditional movement. It's the only antidote to the present apostasy. For troubled Catholics, especially for men and women with kids to raise, it's a quiet haven from the storm.
I agree, especially about the raising the kids part. That's why I'm moving to NJ next year. But, it seems we should go beyond that. Like actively fighting the modernists.
I was thinking...go to a NO Mass, drop an envelope in the basket with a letter stating "My $ have been given to X." Somehow we have to make our presence known and FELT, somehow we have to move beyond that 1% statistic.
Very interesting.
Please explain further.
St. Basil's epistles stem over a fairly long period of time and it is true that he was dealing in the earlier years with the ariyan heresey -- which was a problem specifically to the eastern churches (This is clearly define in his early letters -- but when you read on you will find that they go past that, that that problem was on the mend -- and he gets together with eusebius the bishop of Antioch and a few others and he is clearly speaking of the Church and the church leadership in Rome -- and understandibly he is choseing his words carefully -- he is not trying to be seditionist he is trying to right a ship that was floundering and in the later letters these is a desperation he seems to feel that there was a closing window of oportunity to fix things -- his health is bad in the letters he can't travel -- the person he says that is the churches only hope is up in age -- I beleive they were going to try to put this guy in as pope --- It would take me a bit to tell if they succeeded I am fairly sure that they did not because of letters from other saints. that indicate that they felt as Basil wrote that the catholic church had been subverted,
Now if we were to deal with this like a forensic scientist rather than sports fans there is a fair amount of information availible for this particular period of time we would be able to piece together a much better picture of what was actually taking place -- and make a more informed judgement based on availible information rather than Catholic -- good or Rome -- bad.
As you know I am a protestant so we have two different points of view and this is what is fueling this discussion.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth but as a faithful catholic you generally have a standpoint that the catholic church is that pure thing that was given to St. Peter roughly 1975 years ago. And that all that has traspired and been taught has not changed the purity of the church since its inseption.
Now in your 30 -40 year experiance you have a conflict and you see what you and your friends rightly call corruption specifically of the mass, specifically for some of the last three popes, specifically of vatican II and the priest in the mass turning from facing the altar with his back to the laity to taking "Luthers stance" of facing the laity from behind the altar (This is hard for me to picture as I have not bee in a mass since the mid 1960's I am only spitting out articles I have read on FR)
In other words the traditions are bing changed now before your eyes -- and you don't like it -- you want the old ways but the leadership is moving the direction and as you and others have stated this had far reaching implications.
Can you by your current experiance say that there have been other periods in the catholic churches history where the traditions were changed and not for the good or the better? Can in your mind there have been people bishops and others that would have tried to fix things? It is my understanding that you can legally read these people writings -- and see what was changed that they were so appaulled with in their day and St. Basil because he was sick for so many years has a body of writing and clearly documents the changing of traditions during his life and intimates that the changes happened before him and that only a few remained in his day that kew of what was done and he perceived them to how the power to restore the church.
Lets now talk about me as a protestant and an ex-Lutheran obviously I have a certain baggage -- And let me say that as a child I never heard anything bad said about catholics. I grew up in Larchmont new york which was a predominantly Catholic and Jewish town -- my father worked for the larchmont jewish temple and I walked past St. Augustine's every day to school many of my friends went to CCD
And in the lutheran church in sundays school and later confirmation class nothing bad was said about catholicism. I then came in contact with Billy Graham and house prayer meetings and house bible studies and they never spoke against catholics and as I mentioned I attended catholic charimatic meetings at St. Bernards in white plains new york -- I was then 15 -16 and I rode my bicycle for twelve miles up hill all the way from larchmont to white plains to attend those meetings -- I really loved those people. It wasn't until sometime after that that I first began to hear from fundamentalist preachers and pentecostal preachers and evangelists the EVILS of the catholic church _ and I was educated about everything that you are already aware that is said. They have books perticularly the TWO BABYLONS by hyssop that is their holy grail
My knowledge and experiance with catholics told me different. And this has sustained me over the years from being swallowed hook line and sinker by these un-christian corrupt teachings.
One of the things that I have discovered that proved to have great power was to ask questions. Why do we beleive what we believe? Why do we do what we do? See in protestantism we follow also traditions but our guys take their made up traditions and wrap them in bible verses. And in these churches as catholics have correctly noted there is a doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- and corrupt individuals have also noted that doctrine and used it to say and do a grat number of things that are unscriptural. For a few decades i have been asking questions of men and of God about these matters and it has only been in the last year that I can say that I have been gettings answers and what I am seeing I am not likeing. But for bible beleiving protestants when someone opens a bible and hold up a verse of scripture it is like the cross to a vampire -- they are stopped and mollified --if they beleive in sola scriptura. So men make disciples of themselves instead of to Christ alone. So men preach that is Gods will for christians to be wealthy and have everything in the world instead of praying for their daily bread -- you get the idea -- in my church there has been a great corruption since the 1950's, In baptist and fundamentalist churches there has been a great corrupion since 1910 and i could go on but I won't
I am on a quest to come into what Christ and the Apostles described as the normal experiance of beleivers. That is a truly personal relationship with Christ, that I could hear his voice and see the works that he and the father are doing in heaven and do them here on earth -- this may be a bit too much for you.
So I have been following corruption In Luther in Menno Simons in John calvin -- in the apostollic fathers writings __ I have been trying to pinpoint these times of change, which I think we can agree occurred. Now where we do not agree is the meaning of these changes and I think that is largely do to the fact that these changes are largely ambiguous because no one really cares about church history we live for the moment.
The real problem whether Protestant or Catholic is that we all live within our experiance. We use as our primary measuring stick what we see feel and hear. Abd this is our frame of reference -- in the churches I have gone to and the bible school I went to I have discovered that this is a false frame of reference. I will attempt to explain when someone gets saved, it is in experiance like being born again and so the things you did or beleived pass away and you start more or less with a clean slate to you go to a church or house meeting or what not and line on line a new life in God is created -- the false frame is that the new beleiver beleives that the church and pastor the come up under is perfect and they are the voice and manifestation of God -- so whatever doctrine or tradition they spout that is God. And for most they can never see past this point and in the churches I have been to these people are disciples of the pastor or their church or denomination as opposed to being a disciple of Christ -- these places claim to be christ's surrogates -- but by enlarge they are not they are merely self serving men.
We are called as believers to be overcomers that is to be transcendant above out circumstances to be transcendant above the beleifs of our day and to seek God beyond all we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. Those that are taken with the eyes and ears and fall prey to that are not transcendant they are lost sheep.
In the book of revelation in the beginning with the seven churches -- the over comers are not overcomers because they leave or abandon their churches -- they are overcomers because they transend those in their churches leadership and the laity -- they are overcomers because they let their light shine and help others within their churches to find their way -- but first we have to see beyound the box we live in and the cards we have been handed we have to read scripture for our self we have to pray for your self and we have so see that Jesus Christ is the root source and that he alone in the bible is the way to the father and through him alone we pass from death to life. And then we can truly begin to help those around us.
In st. Basil I see corruption and I see it in the ariyan heresy but his writing go beyound and he documents for those who what to see something else and he calls for the ancients -- Basil was friends with eusebius who wrote Eusebius's the ecclesiatical history. Eusebius spoke of the ancients and I would belive Basil is using his definition. They are at very least leaking about the doctrines held prior to the third century. The ancients was used by eusebius to describe those in the first century the Church in egypt cited from Philo and of the apostles.
These people were historians and they knew the truth and that which was lost -- but untimately in that day their words of repentance were rejected. And in your experiance today you see something similar and I have seen this same thing in the churches I have been to -- all march on to the drummer they hear.
The call As I see it is not to a church or denomination but to christ -- If I would get you to convert what would really happen is I would take from one tradition and have you follow another and for reason that one might convert the same things hold true in what they would convert to -- perhaps a little better hidden or more subtle but they still are exactly what they are.
"The commentaries writer say Basil uses hyperbole -- he exagerates -- that is to say he lies -- that is to say he words don't mean crap -- that is to say we will tell you what he he means ignore his words". That was not logic that was Hyperbole on my part and I think it was effective.
Otherwise, explain Jesus Himself using it "...If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell..." Mt 5:29.
Jesus spoke in parables proverbs and dark sayings -- the proof text is that we did not have a bunch of one eyed apostles in the new testament -- see if we do not understand that words of Christ which I increasingly beleive that men do not -- that is preachers teachers etc. we have the lives of Christ and the Apostles to look at. -- If we don't undertand Christ and the apostle's words we can imitate their lives so that we are at least on the right path. If we reject their words or replace them with traditions and or of we ignore their lives and have people instead imitate corrupt men we are shipwrecked. And why do these people believe these
One of the things I want to say is that these were good sincere people and they had severe problems to deal with. Many of these problems which were increasingly created by
Yes, YES!
You're right. Ask the quiet ones. The ones who spend Mass with their heads in their hands, praying, PRAYING for things to get better (or just to block out the sound of "On Eagle's Wings).
Ask the ones who leave the church quickly after Mass and don't congregate in the aisles -- not all of them are on their way to a Little League game. Some just HAVE to get out of there, hopefully without letting their kids see how upset they are.
I could go on, but I won't, except to say that lots of people are afraid to say what they really think. They're afraid to be thought of as "living in the past" for wishing to attend a more traditional service. They're afraid of being called "unkind" when they complain about Elvis the cantor, who gyrates around the altar strummin' his geeetar. They're afraid of having the priests tell them what fuddy-duddies they are for not "appreciating the gathering" when they object to the Parish Social Hour that preceeds Mass (and sometimes encroaches on the Mass itself!)
I'll tell you something: I hate being this upset. I loathe having to complain, and I detest having to fake enjoying Mass to my children (I don't think they buy it anyway).
There HAS to be some way to fix this. It gets worse and worse every year!
Regards,
I agree with Ultima Ratio. My situation in the Archdiocese of Baltimore is deplorable (to put it mildly). I sure don't want my 6 week old to be growing up in this environment. That's why we're moving to NJ to be in the TLM parish of Mater Ecclesiae.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore can be summed up as follows:
One stagnant TLM available. Low Mass mentality reigns supreme. Go to Fr. Jim Tucker's blog for a complete explanation of the Low Mass mentality and how it is not traditional.
One Novus Ordo in Latin. Pastor is a social justice nut, so the homily usually destroys any meaning derived from the Mass itself. Also, this is not a well attended Mass either.
Maybe a few more conservative inner city parishes.
A huge, wide swath of liberal, in every sense of the word, suburban parishes.
Thanks for your extensive post. There really is too much to address, some of it goes beyond the title of the thread. But I will try to address a few points you make.
First, Basil. As it turns out, he was VERY pro-Apostolic Tradition. Rather than type them out, I will give you some of the letters and you can look at them:
XXVII.65 Here, he says "...all of these (church teachings, both written and oral) have equal authority in relation to piety...for if anyone should attempt to remove non-written customs as being without force, that person would damage, albeit unknowingly, the Gospel on some essential points."
He goes on to explain the various rites, although not Scriptural, are teachings of the Church, and are to be kept. We do things in the liturgy, without knowing why. You are aware, no doubt, of lex orandi, lex credendi. Basil is expressing this relationship. If you recall, Arianism is thoroughly refuted by Athanasius by referring to this formula. How can you say Christ is not God, yet you worship Him in your liturgy??? That was the gist of Athanasius argument. And Basil, fighting those who would twist Scripture to fit their preconceived notions (yea, people did that even back then), had to defend the notion of Apostolic Tradition.
XXVII.66 more on the above..example. why do we pray standing on Sunday yet not know why?
XXVII.67 more on the above..first line: A whole day would not be enough for me to discuss the mysteries of the Church which are not written down!
XXIX.71
All quite interesting.
"The real problem whether Protestant or Catholic is that we all live within our experiance"
I disagree with that - That is not a problem, but a necessity! Faith is not merely limited to the intellectual. It also depends on experience. The Hebrews did not come to faith in God by philosphizing, like the Greeks, but they experience God's saving love through the Exodus experience. We as Christians, must also realize that Christianity calls us to be another Christ - to experience Him and be transformed into Him, not to follow the commandments, exhibit virtue, etc. Becoming another Christ naturally leads to the above, but focusing on that turns Christianity into legalism. So experience within the framework of our culture is very important. Vatican 2 in The Church in the Modern World states this unequivocally.
I am not of the mind that I believe the Latin Mass will solve anything. So I prefer not to be lumped into that group. Basil, I think, is probably upset about the state of the Church, in that there was much division due to Arianism. Being human AND divine, the Church will continue to have such problems. I don't see it as the beginning of the end - recall that Jesus promised the Church would exist for all time. So despite some of the bad people in the Church, the Church will continue to exist. Those who aren't sure have limited faith in God's Providence.
Please continue commenting, but keep your post subjects more limited. I am not able to address all of your concerns this way.
Regards
Well, I thought it was obvious, but let me try:
First, I dont want it to sound like I am putting others down...
OK, You said that Jesus is the same always, and protestants say that, too. They, well most of them, have not made use of rituals and ceremonies in the way We (Catholics) do, but they have not also decreased in numbers. Young people in protestant sects, denominations, etc... are also going with the general trend of saying I am a Christian but only with their mouth. Morals are not followed, and officially, many of them dont enforce them... in fashion, speech, etc., etc.
There pews are not as full as they used to be. And, if their sermons focus on moral issues and what they SHOULD DO, such as not swearing, no contraception, no abortion, etc, etc, no homosexuality, no divorce, etc, the pews will be much emptier. And they will open new churches. Here around where I live now, there are many, many 'churches' or places of worship that are protestant almost 2 blocks away from each other, and I would guarantee that they do not believe the same thing, and that they were created because they either did not agree with each other, or, well, that's basically the main reason why new groups are created.
latinmass
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.