Where have all the people in the Pews Gone

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.

My statement still stands.

And yes - deacons are indeed non-critical, in terms of their function and usefulness. We have played this game before - and virtually all but a few of the things which a deacon can do, can be done by a lay person.

The Church needs priests - not halfway, stopgap measures.

No, I have not personally been responsible for encouraging a vocation to the preisthood.

But I have tried to lead some of my contemporaries - as well as younger persons back to the faith.....with some success.

And I also have stopped a few suicide attempts.......and counseled those in absolute despair.

For that I did not need any fancy degrees, or a pat on the head from a Bishop. Just my Catholic training, , and a little help from that tiny white dove who has seven gifts to give.

Whether I be a layman or priest, those credentials are available to all - and for free.

Well, about other things there hasnt been a single peep out of the vatican, either.... or just mild suggestions to do it as thing are set in the rubrics.

How much trouble have these 3 GIRM's been through?? Didnt the Vatican have to extablish a committee to supervise the translation of the GIRM's because of the lack of respect?? Is not the Vatican going to send people to inspect American seminaries??? What about De Eucharistía???

---.."and not a single peep out of the Vatican about the Mass of Pius V, except that it should be more widely available."---

In addition to this, the Mass was allowed to be said in St. Peter's for the first time in almost 30 years, and in other major churches of Rome, ex. Santa María Maggiore and One of the chapels of St. Peter, the establishment of the Ecclesia Commission, the acceptance of the Diocese of Campos, Brasil.

You need to update your information and comments!

latinmass1983

Let me see if I can paraphrase the words of a certain Bishop explaining WHY the people are abandoning the NO mass:

1. The people are thirsty - there is no water here, so they go where someone says they will get water....to another church - any other church.

2. The young have deep spiritual needs - which are neither being met, nor addressed in sermons.

3. The services are frequently conducted in a sloppy and irreverent way - with constant innovation. The people have neither the security of tradition, nor experiencethe dignity of reverence.

4. The clergy conduct their lives as to indulge in the same worldly pleasure that the young are tempted to, so they see no reason for respect nor trust in the clergy.

5. The young observe confusion in the laity: either a pious laity during the mass with an impious clergy, or they observe impiety in both. Somtimes a misture of both in the same church. To them, this makes no sense, and is further encouragement to abandon religion.

6. The young may observe one thing taught at home and another in church. This confuses them, and fills their minds with distrust and disbelief in both parent and priest alike.

One does not need to be a theologian to understand that these factors are and have been for 40 years driving away two generations (almost 3) of young people from the Church.

Until and unless the above factors are rectified, no amount of "catachesis", advertising, cajoling make the ounger folks return to the NO once they have left.

The first statement basicly says it all: they seek water from where it may be found, and from whomever offfers it to them. Let us hope that they find it in Tradition.

What is the history of the deaconate in the Church? I have heard that traditionally, this was a step toward the priesthood, and that no one aspired to remain a deacon permanently. If it happened, it was because of some problem with the candidate or the situation; the exception to the rule. It was just one of several steps that included Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Subdeacon. I don't hear anyone trying to become a "permanent Subdeacon" or a "permanent Exorcist." So what's the point of a "permanent Deacon?"

Could it be just a way a man can get a little extra income going? Maybe a status symbol, like another degree, a royal title or a political office?

Thanks for the link.

After browsing all through it, all I find is that the permanent Diaconate was "restored" at Vatican II. I don't see any information about how long it had been abandoned, or whatever. They say "the deaconate was instituted by the Apostles," but they do not say the "permanent" Deaconate was of apostolic origin, as far as I can tell. So, I don't know yet:

1)when was the "permanent Diaconate" first practiced?

2)when were "permanent Deacons" first put on salary by the local church?

3)what exactly was "restored" at Vatican II in regards to the "permanent Diaconate?"

1)when was the "permanent Diaconate" first practiced?

The diaconate was institued in the early Church. In fact, initially there were bishops (the apostles and their successors) and deacons, who helped the bishops. The priesthood as a separate order did not originate until the number of Christians grew to the point where bishops could no longer celebrate the Eucharist with Christian communities on a regular basis.

2)when were "permanent Deacons" first put on salary by the local church?

Don't know. Many of us do not take salaries. I never have.

3)what exactly was "restored" at Vatican II in regards to the "permanent Diaconate?"

The diaconate, as a permanent order, was restored. Permanent deacons are not ordained "on the way to" the priesthood, as transitional deacons are. They will always remain deacons.

BTW, it is the only vocation in the Church that has been growing at a steady 5-8% rate, every year.

Here is another link, author "unknown," that goes into more detail. It says that the deacons of the first few centuries were (probably) permanent. (No precise language claims any clear record.)

http://www.deacons.net/Articles/A_brief_history_of_the_permanent_Diaconate.htm

Some of the language is obviously transplanted Vatican II style phrases, in reference to the ancient church. One reference makes me suspect of the whole article: "By the Middle Ages the office of deacon was, according to Rahner, close to being a 'legal fiction'."

One place is rather disturbing: the Church gradually abandoned the office of deacon over "confusion of roles in the sacralisation of the presbyterate." I wonder how long before that starts to happen all over again?

One place is rather disturbing: the Church gradually abandoned the office of deacon over "confusion of roles in the sacralisation of the presbyterate." I wonder how long before that starts to happen all over again?

If the number of priests continues to decline at the present rate, deacons will replace priests as "pastors", with priests acting much like circuit riders, just going from parish to parish to celebrate Mass and hear confessions.

Deacons will do everything else, including administer the Anointing of the Sick (that is coming soon).

Interesting. If I get your content right, you are saying that deacons will soon have the power to forgive sins.

Unless, that is, the "anointing of the sick" to which you refer, is not the same thing as the Last Sacrament, Extreme Unction.

One of the last things I saw at my local parish before I left for good was a woman (whom I knew) dressed in white flowing vestments identical to the ones the priests wear, standing behind the altar, lifting the chalice and the ciborium with fully outstretched arms. It was part of a "communion service" that they were so careful to assure me "was not including a consecration." There was no priest available at that time, so this was a fill-in measure. I was not the only one rather disappointed in the "progress."

Another thing I saw was when the usher told me to go on in to the sacristy to speak to the priest. I did, and this same woman, after a Sunday mass, was in the sacristy with the priest. They were both divesting, but her mannerisms looked too much like a performance, if you know what I mean. The priest was obviously embarrassed, but she seemed to be enjoying it.

It's not such a big leap, it seems to me, to go from the "communion service" to an all-out mass.

It's not such a big leap, it seems to me, to go from a deacon giving the "anointing of the sick" to a deacon including the sacrament including the remission of sins.

It's not such a big leap, it seems to me, to go from laymen, laywomen and decons doing practically everything a priest DOES to people losing the distinction between what a priest IS and what someone else IS.

And if you have deaconesses, you will shortly have priestesses. At that point, I would rather be utterly certain that what they do is not valid.

Unless, that is, the "anointing of the sick" to which you refer, is not the same thing as the Last Sacrament, Extreme Unction.

The Sacrament of Penance is optional at the Sacrament of the Sick. Obviously, arrangements would have to be made to have a priest hear the person's confession if requested. But there is no theological reason why a deacon could not anoint a sick person; deacons anoint the newly baptized all the time.

The most important thing the Church does, sacramentally, is to make Christ in the Eucharist available to the faithful. The Eucharist is the focus.

The Church is doing what it must to make the Eucharist available. If that means deacons and laymen distribute what priests have consecrated, then that's what they will do.

As Grandma lies on her deathbed, you call for a priest to annoint her & to hear her confession. In short, you want her to receive the Last Rites of the Church. This a deacon cannot do, as he is not a priest.

The deacon cannot hear her confession & absolve her from her sins, sacramentally annoint her senses, and prepare her spiritually to face death.

A software salesman who insists upon being called a "deacon" cannot do this for Grandma. He cannot do anything for her which you cannot do by yourself. For that matter, you could even bring her Communion, in case of necessity!

The so-called permanant diaconate is a creature of Vatican II. Prior to this, for some 1200 years (at least) the deacon was one of the minor orders - and a tranmsitory one.
Nothing has been gained from its present so-called permanancy. Except confusion of the laity as to liturgical/sacramental roles.

The deacons are major player in diminishing the role of the priest at mass.......along with the bevy of random laypersons in the once hallowed sanctuary.

The continued spiralling decline of the NO will leave all those deacons with very little to do, when they run short of customers. They are truly adjucts to the parish priest, and without the priest, there is really very little they can do - which cannot be done, out of necessity - by a layman.

There are some other things I picked up on the Net researching this question. One site assures all viewers that the "permanent deacon" was "restored" by V.II to become the "eyes and ears" of the bishop.

Informants are an essential element of government systems of all kinds. In this case, the bishop wants to run his diocese in a particular way, which the Vatican most recently suborns in principle by its own admission (not a traditional Holy See reaction). When there are priests under his authority who do not agree with his policy, the bishop wants to call them to obedience, but might find this difficult if he can't prove anything against the priest. Therefore, the bishop needs informants (eyes and ears) to report on the less outspoken dissidents. In this case, the deacons become perhaps little potentates, like gastapo officers, inflated with their own power to force the priest to do what they command him to do. The priest would become fearful of the deacon.

In today's climate, when so many bishops are splitting off from orthodoxy (but the Vatican does nothing against it), while many of their priests are trying to remain Catholic, having deacons who facilitate their bishops' deviance can only lead to the destruction of the Church. It seems to me this is also very likely the reason that the deaconate gradually became merely a transitional office for the past 1400 years.

Another aspect of the last sacrament is, that not infrequently, the recipient is not able to confess. They might be in a coma, or incoherent, suffering from dimentia, or even willing to speak but simply unable to speak because of some kind of physical problem like a tongue or throat disorder, or being stuck in a burning building or sinking ship. The priest needs to be able to know whether or not a conditional absolution is in order. He can forgive sins based on the presumption that the penitent is willing but unable to confess. Likewise, if the priest arrives after the subject has died, he can still administer conditional absolution based on the principle that it might not be too late yet, that the soul might be lingering and waiting, so to speak, for the absoultion. A deacon can do none of these things.

There have been saints who, as priests, raised the dead to life for the purpose of absolution, after which they immediately returned again to death and physical corruption. At least one saint was a martyr because he was killed when he refused to reveal what a penitent told him in Confession.

The so-called permanant diaconate is a creature of Vatican II. Prior to this, for some 1200 years (at least) the deacon was one of the minor orders - and a tranmsitory one.

How many times do you have to be told that the diaconate has always been one of the three major orders of Holy Orders!!! The other two are priesthood and episcopacy!! The diaconate imparts a permanent character of Orders to the recipient!

That is a teaching of the Church, which you continue to distort at every opportunity.

And, your understanding of the roles of deacons and priests is woefully deficient. You need a good book on sacramental theology.

Why not read the chapters on the Sacraments in the Catholic Catechism? That would be a good place to start.

Informants are an essential element of government systems of all kinds. In this case, the bishop wants to run his diocese in a particular way, which the Vatican most recently suborns in principle by its own admission (not a traditional Holy See reaction). When there are priests under his authority who do not agree with his policy, the bishop wants to call them to obedience, but might find this difficult if he can't prove anything against the priest. Therefore, the bishop needs informants (eyes and ears) to report on the less outspoken dissidents. In this case, the deacons become perhaps little potentates, like gastapo officers, inflated with their own power to force the priest to do what they command him to do. The priest would become fearful of the deacon.

This is kookburger, conspiratorial paranoia. Where do you get this stuff?

"That is a teaching of the Church, which you continue to distort at every opportunity."

The "status" and role of the permanent diaconate is not a teaching of the church. I am not required to "believe" in the deacon - and what he can or cannot do.

Since a permanent deacon is NOT a priest (or bishop), and cannot say mass, absolve sins, confirm, ordain (in the case of a bishop), nor confer Extreme Unction......nor is he going to be able to do any of these things in the future as his status is not transitional, his role, dignity, and duties are subordinate to and dependant on the existance of the ordained priesthood.

The diaconte only exists as an adjunct to the priesthood. It may also be done away with, and returned to transitional status, by papal edict.......or may simply be discontinued by being allowed to fall into disuse.

Your alleged status as a deacon may be stripped from you, you activities restricted or prohibited, and your status not recognized in another diocese.

The so- called permanent diaconate, in its present incarnation, is a creature of Vatican II. Prior to this for some 1400 years, the diaconate was one of the minor orders - and a transitory one.

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.