EMBRACING TRADITION: SMALL BUT GROWING NUMBER OF CATHOLICS RETURN TO RIGID RULES, LATIN MASSES

San Jose Mercury News ^ | Fri, Jul. 04, 2003 | Lisa Fernandez

[nickcarraway]

Cynthia Hummon, left, and Cassie Hamilton recite the stations of the cross during a retreat at St. Aloysius Retreat Center.

Tucked away in the hills of Los Gatos is a conservative Catholic retreat where much of modernity is rejected: Priests wear ankle-length black cassocks, children's play structures look like ancient castles, and Mass is celebrated in Latin.

[dsc]

"Some of our families have moved from distant states to have access to the Old Mass."

As soon as I can surmount, oh, about fifteen insurmountable obstacles, I'm going to move from Japan back to the States for it.

[B Knotts]

It is telling, however, isn't it, that she had been employed by the Diocese?

Dissenters and modernists seem to have a pretty good track record of finding employment in chanceries.

[B Knotts]

I wonder why the Mercury news decided to do an article on this, let alone a front page one.

I think it's kind of a "point and laugh at the funny religious people" kind of thing.

[k omalley]

"That's one of the lousier articles I've seen as far as its depiction of traditional Catholicism."

Yes, its that old, tired implication that the Church needs to get with the program by following the lead of the world. Also, the statement that such a church is dynamic is laughable. If anything, those butchered liturgy, Kumbayah style masses in a building resembling a gym are downright enervating.

[B Knotts]

Not only that, they present only a watered down version of canonical Catholicism. Abortion and contraception are still wrong.

That's certainly true, but you have to admit that there are a lot of people who consider themselves Catholic who do not hold to the Church's teachings on such issues. Gov. Davis, for instance.

What percentage, even of Catholics who regularly attend Mass, fully accept the Church's teaching on contraception?

[B Knotts]

Just out of curiosity, what is it about the Tridentine Mass you dislike? I've never been to one, so I only know about it from what I've read.

[american colleen]

What percentage, even of Catholics who regularly attend Mass, fully accept the Church's teaching on contraception?

I'm wondering what percentage of Catholics really know the Church's teaching on this subject. Seriously, I've never heard it mentioned from the pulpit OR by the priest who married me 17 years ago.

The so-called theologians have muddied this issue so much over the years (even taking out an ad in the NY Times in 1968) that they have pretty much convinced many of us that it is a matter of conscience (formed independent of the magisterium but in conjunction with the theologians).

[k omalley]

Our priests speak out against artificial contraception fairly often and our parish sponsors NFP classes.

[traditionalist]

What horrible reporting. There were so many factual errors I lost count. I get the impression the reporter did not do any research.

[Maximilian]

The SSPX Masses are illicit, which means that a Catholic sins by attending them if a Novus Ordo mass is available.

For all those who missed it previously, here is the letter from the Vatican commission on the Latin Mass which answers this precise question. Msgr. Perl said:

If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.

Here is the full letter:

Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003

Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.

Oremus pro invicem.

In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

Msgr. Camille Perl's response:

Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

[Slyfox]

``The pope is infected with modernism,'' complained Eileen Allen, 45

I attended SSPX Masses until I got a bellyfull of the cranky talk about Our Holy Father. It was a real shame, a truly beautiful Mass followed by protestant yammerings about the Pope.

[sinkspur]

2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass

He can't recommend it, but, if one goes, it's no big deal, apparently.

More Vatican doublespeak.

[ninenot]

Well, one can hardly avoid the topic what with Gibson's film coming up.

[ninenot]

It's mostly emotion, like some of the Novus Ordo crowd "feels" the "God-experience."

Any time one uses the term "Feels" one is describing an emotional experience.

So let's put the cart back behind the pony.

If you concede that all the elements of a theatrical production should be ordered to the success of that production, then you can also understand that all the elements of a liturgical action should be ordered to the success of that action.

The analogy is a bit rough--but not without some lessons.

"Ad Orientem" is simply different from, and in some ways, the opposite of "Versus Populum."

Using 'smells and bells' produces a different atmosphere than neither, and I don't mean 'smoke-filled.'

Using a sacral language has an effect not the same as using the vernacular.

Using Chant, for which the rhythm is derived from the text, has a much different effect than using hymns (even old 'foursquare' ones) or polyphony--and CERTAINLY different from either syncopation or quiet 'mood music' tunes, no matter WHAT accompanies them.

Kneeling and standing produce different internal understandings of the object for which one kneels/stands.

Sacred Space, gated, differentiated, produces a different mental image of 'what's up there' than a non-separated area, particularly if "gathering around" is used.

That's a beginning.

All these observations have to do with the totality of the presentation and its effect, and can be intellecually dissected in an analogy to the legitimate theater, albeit one is NOT speaking about theater.

[ninenot]

Unless there is no Novus Ordo mass available, this is absolutely untrue!

I don't think this is untrue. Vat. correspondence seems to concede that one can attend SSPX Masses and fulfill obligation--however, the Vat cautions that one should not 'embrace the views' of schism.

[Alberta's Child]

It's mostly emotion, like some of the Novus Ordo crowd "feels" the "God-experience."

That's not necessarily the case at all. I attended Novus Ordo masses for most of my life, but if I were to sit down and rank the top 10 homilies I've ever heard at a Sunday mass, I'd say that eight or nine of them were heard at Tridentine masses in the last three years.

And the one or two top-rate sermons I've heard at Novus Ordo masses were given by old Benedictine monks from India at a monastary in northern New Jersey.

[AlguyA]

"Traditionalists have much more to object to in the New Mass, for instance, than the priest facing the people."

Undoubtedly. However, don't overlook the simple things. Last Memorial Day I and my family attended an outdoor Mass at a local Catholic cemetery. Built long ago, the altar in the cemetary was consttructed in a way in which the priest could only do the Liturgy of the Eucharist with his back to the people. Given he is a fairly young, fairly orthodox priest, I'm sure he didn't mind this.

Anyway, on the way home, my wife and I were discussing in the front seat how beautiful the Mass was and how much we particularly were moved by the liturgy being performed by the priest with his back to us. My wife asked something to the effect of "why do you suppose that is?" Before I could answer, my eleven year-old daughter piped up from the back seat with the observation, "Because you can see Jesus better."

After a bit of discussion, I discerned that what she was saying was she could focus more on Jesus in the Eucharist with the priest's back to us.

Out of the mouths of babes.

PS. american colleen, you'll be happy to know my daughter's name is Colleen.

[ultima ratio]

Thanks for posting this.

[ultima ratio]

Traditionalists are not saints. We are not shy about complaining about Church authorities. But we know the difference between a Mass that is truly Catholic and one that is not.

[ultima ratio]

I was waiting for someone to point out this phony charge that traditionalists must be sure they attend SSPX Masses without intending separation from Rome. This is sheer nonsense and always has been. There has never been any basis for such a suspicion.

In fact, traditionalists spend a lot of time explaining to people like yourself and sinkspur why they are not schismatic. Do you think they would bother if they intended separation? SSPX had insisted from the outset the charge was ludicrous--and it is. Traditionalists intend no separation and never did.

It is another attempt for Rome to speak from both sides of its mouth. It KNOWS traditionalists intend no separation--and the annual pilgrimages to Rome by traditionalists show this. But it needs to justify its own harsh attitudes in the past--so different from the tolerance it has manifested anywhere else inside or outside the Church.