Where have all the people in the Pews Gone

Old SF Examiner ^ | 1978 | Kevin Starr

[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.

[american colleen]

St. Vincent of Lerins: On the Christian Faith, Heresy and Interpreting the Scriptures
Chapter II.

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Chapter III.

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate andconsult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

. . .

Chapter XXVII.

What Rule is to be observed in the Interpretation of Scripture.

But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Where have all the people in the Pews Gone

They left or stayed home. Now we have Novus Ordo churches full of converted mainline Protestants and two generations of post VII Catholics who know nothing else.

[jo kus]

"The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. --St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (347-407)"

How about "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Lk 12:48

And how about the parable of the wheat and the tares Mt 13:25-30?

Don't you think Chrysostom had the above sayings of Jesus in mind? Is it surprising that he didn't think much of bishops who didn't belong in their office? Does this mean anything more than there are a few bad people serving in the Church?

Regards,

[american colleen]

ST. LAWRENCE
Feast: August 10

---

St. Lawrence, one of the deacons of the Roman Church, was one of the victims of the persecution of Valerian in 258, like Pope Sixtus II and many other members of the Roman clergy. At the beginning of the month of August, 258, the emperor issued an edict, commanding that all bishops, priests, and deacons should immediately be put to death ("episcopi et presbyteriet diacones incontinenti animadvertantur"—Cyprian, Epist. lxxx, 1). This imperial command was immediately carried out in Rome. On 6 August Pope Sixtus II was apprehended in one of the catacombs, and executed forthwith ("Xistum in cimiterio animadversum sciatis VIII id. Augusti et cum eo diacones quattuor." Cyprian, ep. lxxx, 1). Two other deacons, Felicissimus and Agapitus, were put to death the same day. In the Roman Calendar of feasts of the fourth century their feast day is on the same date. Four days later, on the 10th of August of that same year, Lawrence, the last of the seven deacons, also suffered a martyr's death. The anniversary of this holy martyr falls on that day, according to the Almanac of Philocalus for the year 354, the inventory of which contains the principal feasts of the Roman martyrs of the middle of the fourth century; it also mentions the street where his grave is to be found, the Via Tiburtina ("III id. Aug. Laurentii in Tibertina"; Ruinart, "Acta sincera", Ratisbon, 1859, 632). The itineraries of the graves of the Roman martyrs, as given in the seventh century, mention the burial-place of this celebrated martyr in the Catacomb of Cyriaca in agro Verano (De Rossi, "Roma Sott.", I, 178).
Since the fourth century St. Lawrence has been one of the most honoured martyrs of the Roman Church. Constantine the Great was the first to erect a little oratory over his burial-place, which was enlarged and beautified by Pope Pelagius II (579-90). Pope Sixtus III (432-40) built a large basilica with three naves, the apse leaning against the older church, on the summit of the hill where he was buried. In the thirteenth century Honorius III made the two buildings into one, and so the basilica of San Lorenzo remains to this day. Pope St. Damasus (366-84) wrote a panegyric in verse, which was engraved in marble and placed over his tomb. Two contemporaries of the last-named pope, St. Ambrose of Milan and the poet Prudentius, give particular details about St. Lawrence's death. Ambrose relates (De officiis min. xxviii) that when St. Lawrence was asked for the treasures of the Church he brought forward the poor, among whom he had divided the treasure, in place of alms; also that when Pope Sixtus II was led away to his death he comforted Lawrence, who wished to share his martyrdom, by saying that he would follow him in three days. The saintly Bishop of Milan also states that St. Lawrence was burned to death on a grid-iron (De offic., xli). In like manner, but with more poetical detail, Prudentius describes the martyrdom of the Roman deacon in his hymn on St. Lawrence ("Peristephanon", Hymnus II).

The meeting between St. Lawrence and Pope Sixtus II, when the latter was being led to execution, related by St. Ambrose, is not compatible with the contemporaneous reports about the persecution of Velarian. The manner of his execution—burning on a red-hot gridiron—also gives rise to grave doubts. The narrations of Ambrose and Prudentius are founded rather on oral tradition than on written accounts. It is quite possible that between the year 258 and the end of the fourth century popular legends may have grown up about this highly venerated Roman deacon, and some of these legends have been preserved by these two authors. We have, in any case, no means of verifying from earlier sources the details derived from St. Ambrose and Prudentius, or of ascertaining to what extent such details are supported by earlier historical tradition. Fuller accounts of the martyrdom of St. Lawrence were composed, probably, early in the sixth century, and in these narratives a number of the martyrs of the Via Tiburtina and of the two Catacombs of St. Cyriaca in agro Verano and St. Hippolytius were connected in a romantic and wholly legendary fashion. The details given in these Acts concerning the martyrdom of St. Lawrence and his activity before his death cannot claim any credibility. However, in spite of this criticism of the later accounts of the martyrdom, there can be no question that St. Lawrence was a real historical personage, nor any doubt as to the martyrdom of that venerated Roman deacon, the place of its occurrence, and the date of his burial. Pope Damasus built a basilica in Rome which he dedicated to St. Lawrence; this is the church now known as that of San Lorenzo in Damaso. The church of San Lorenzo in Lucina, also dedicated to this saint, still exists. The feast day of St. Lawrence is kept on 10 August. He is pictured in art with the gridiron on which he is supposed to have been roasted to death.

J. P. Kirsch
Transcribed by Paul T. Crowley
Dedicated to Mr. Larry Cope

[jrny]

Unfortunately, that is probably true. There was a better chance of having a "lay revolution" back then than there is now. In 1978, the majority of Catholics living grew up with the TLM. I would say by 1990 that has not been the case anymore. I also believe that while the older generation may have wanted to retain or return to the TLM back then, those same people who are still living today tend to either not care or have completely accepted the NO. I know my older relatives fit this category...i.e. they were mildly to vehemently opposed to the "changes" at the time, but they now embrace the NO wholeheartedly.

No, the TLM is going to boosted by my generation. The young families of the 20, 30, & 40 somethings are the future of the TLM and the Church for that matter.

[Rocketman]

That's the talk of 1600 years of revisionists that have a church property to protect.

Now I know that you read what you wrote in a commentary or something similar -- Saint Basil has over 250 letters and it took me over 8 hours to read them and get a lot of those quotes

In the early letter he is fighting against Arianism which was huring specifically the eastern churches and he says so but look up and re-read the quotes particularly to the bishop of Antioch to save the church and the one about the anti-christ

The commentaries writer say Basil uses 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.

Use the same standards as those on FR don't read synoptic source documents about other documents I have given you many of the letter numbers -- to me about the anti-christ one other any of the later ones after the arian problem was solved in his letters and them tell me what he is talking about.

[american colleen]

Pope St. Dionysius
Date of birth unknown; d. 26 or 27 December, 268. During the pontificate of Pope Stephen (254-57) Dionysius appears as a presbyter of the Roman Church and as such took part in the controversy concerning the validity of heretical baptism (see BAPTISM under sub-title Rebaptism). This caused Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria to write him a letter on baptism in which he is described as an excellent and learned man (Eusebius, Hist eccl. VII, vii). Later, in the time of Pope Sixtus II (257-58), the same Bishop of Alexandria addressed Dionysius a letter concerning Lucianus (ibid., VII, ix), who this Lucianus was is not known. After the martyrdom of Sixtus II (6 August, 258) the Roman See remained vacant for nearly a year, as the violence of the persecution made it impossible to elect a new head. It was not until the persecution had begun to subside that Dionysius was raised (22 July, 259) to the office of Bishop of Rome. Some months later the Emperor Gallienus issued his edict of toleration, which brought the persecution to an end and gave a legal existence to the Church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xiii). Thus the Roman Church came again into possession of its buildings for worship, its cemeteries, and other properties, and Dionysius was able to bring its administration once more into order. About 260 Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor against Sabellianism in which he expressed himself with inexactness as to the Logos and its relation to God the Father (see DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA). Upon this an accusation against him was laid before Pope Dionysius who called a synod at Rome about 260 for the settlement of the matter. The pope issued, in his own name and that of the council, an important doctrinal letter in which, first, the erroneous doctrine of Sabellius was again condemned and, then, the false opinions of those were rejected who, like the Marcionites, in a similar manner separate the Divine monarchy into three entirely distinct hypostases or who represent the Son of God as a created being, while the Holy Scriptures declare Him to have been begotten passages in the Bible, such as Deut., xxxii, 6, Prov., viii, 22, cannot be cited in support of false doctrines such as these. Along with this doctrinal epistle Pope Dionysius sent a separate letter to the Alexandrian Bishop in which the latter was called on to explain his views. This Dionysius of Alexandria did in his "Apologia" (Athanasius, De sententia Dionysii, V, xiii, De decretis Nicaenae synodi, xxvi). According to the ancient practice of the Roman Church Dionysius also extended his care to the faithful of distant lands. When the Christians of Cappadocia were in great distress from the marauding incursions of the Goths, the pope addressed a consolatory letter to the Church of Caesarea and sent a large sum of money by messengers for the redemption of enslaved Christians (Basilius, Epist. lxx, ed. Garnier). The great synod of Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata sent a circular letter to Pope Dionysius and Bishop Maximus of Alexandria concerning its proceedings (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xxx). After death the body of Dionysius was buried in the papal crypt in the catacomb of Callistus.

[Rocketman]

regardless the catholic church admits these as martyrs and saints and records their deaths a week apart and St. Lawrence is credited with passing out all the church of Rome's stuff -- according to Rome it happened as is and The Church of Rome is what is at issue here not what contemporary writers ahve to say.

And if the Church of rome says it was wiped out it was wiped out and the sucession stopped then and there.

Tough stuff

[dangus]

Malachy says at least two more popes to go: Glory of the Olives and Peter the Roman. (Contrary to some perversions of the prophecies, Peter the Roman will be a great Pope.) And of course, nothing about St. Malacy's list says it is exhaustive.

[dangus]

Lovely. Your source is so ignorant that he believes Constantine to have been sainted. Wild claims that Basil considered The Bishop of Rome to ba the antichrist are baseless: the exerpts say no such thing, and only approach saying such things because of the editor's handiwork.

A truly shamless display.

[american colleen]

You may not know that St. John Chrysostom is a Doctor of the Catholic Church... and he taught that the real presence of Jesus Christ (body, blood and divinity) is present in the consecrated Eucharist. His very words are still used by the Catholic priests in the Mass today.

[american colleen]

And if the Church of rome says it was wiped out it was wiped out and the sucession stopped then and there.

Can you provide a link from the Catholic Church explaining that it was 'wiped out' and 'succession stopped' by the martrydom of Pope Sixtus ll?

Where are you getting your reinterpretation of history from?

[dangus]

All the parishes around Northern Virginia are immense, and typically standing room only. My parish added a 6PM mass, and now the 5:30 vigil, 11:00, and 6PM are beyond standing room only (as is the 1PM Spanish mass). People have to stand outside the doors of the church; you can only sit at the 7:30 AM, and stand in the church at the 9AM . And it seats several hundred. (1000?) St. Anthony's nearby, has to fill up the parking lot with worshippers, and that church seats 1600, one of the largest non-cathedral churches around.

When I went home a couple weeks ago, I was shocked to see the small, suburban parish I grew up in had become Standing Room Only.

Yes, the churches in Boston were largely empty, but the decay is not all around.

[Rocketman]

Shameless -- I found St. Constantine listed on catholic saint sites.

I found in writings that he was told that after death he would be an apostle.

If you aren't willing do a simple search online to verify the existance or non-existance of a saint Its hard to have an honest conversation.

And as to your complaints of the players listed to help those who read they were all bracketed to inidicate they were amended to the text.

Shameless would have been that the editor made alterations and wrote them in unbracketed leaving the reader to think that they were the text.

[SuziQ]

And what does that say about your church if people would rather attend if they can't understand what the leader is saying?

Back when Mass was said in Latin, everyone had Missals (books) that had the Latin on one page and the English (or whatever the local language was) on the page facing it so that you always knew what the priest was saying. You mostly needed to only know the responses, as far as speaking it was concerned, though, the chants and songs at High Mass were in Latin. They were usually easy to learn, and after a few years hearing them, you knew them by heart anyway.

Mass in Latin was one thing that made the Church truly Universal, because you could go anywhere in the world, attend Mass and know what was being said. Now, you can get the gist of it because you know the parts of the Mass, but you don't know all of it.

[HitmanLV]

I don't think Malachy's predicted that the next pope would be the last. I think the next one is 'next-to-last,' but then again, I am unsure it ever purported to be an exhaustive list of popes (in other words, it could continue past his final prediction).

[Rocketman]

Thank you I would not know -- if you could elaborate a little on "Doctor of the Catholic Church" I'm unfamiliar with that designation

[Rocketman]

I'm reading on "Advent" and two other sites one is from the eastern church.

[dangus]

St. John Chrysostom was himself a bishop. So he obviously didn't mean all bishops. What he wrote was a warning to all bishops of the gravity of their office. It is their moral duty to maintain the faith, and that the price of their failure to uphold that morality was graver beyond all imagination. He was warning them that their office didn't shield them from damnation, but rather their acceptance of that office played their soul in grave danger because of the amazing spiritual responsibilities that came with it.

But like most ignorant Catholic-bashers, you fail to recognize that the Catholic church never said that bishops, or even the Pope, are impeccable.

For his scathing condemnation of the bishops of Rome, the bishops of Rome have seen to it that he remains one of the saints most studied by bishops and preists.

[Salvation]

But Gregorian Chant is back -- Come Back!