An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

I think one interesting point to make regarding the original article is the history of the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo.

The following is an excerpt from Bryan Houghton's book Mitre and Crook dealing with this subject. This is an excellent book that I would recommend to every Catholic wishing to understand the revolution that took place in the church in the 1960's and 70's (It is out of print but fairly easy to come by).

"On June 14th, 1971, the Congregation for Worship issued a Notification granting to Episcopal Conferences the right to impose the exclusive use of the vernacular in the New Ordo, once the translations had been approved. It thus became illicit to celebrate the New Ordo in Latin. (. . .) It also repeated the provision in the instruction of October 20th, 1969 that the Old Mass could only be said by aged priests sine populo.

Be it noted that a Notification is a purely administrative document and has no legislative authority whatsoever. Moreover, this particular one was itself undated and unsigned. It is therefore worth less than the paper on which it was printed. The bishops, from Rome to Stamford, remained mute.

Of course, the inevitable result of this particular piece of administrative folly was to throw all Latinists into the arms of the Tridentiners. There was no alternative if the New Ordo was illicit in Latin. It became imperative to divide the opposition, especially as Archbishop Lefebvre had cropped up in the meantime. The laity had thus found a bishop with the promise of future priests. Hence the Notification of October 28th, 1974. This document reverses the previous ruling: the New Ordo may now be said in Latin or vernacular with equality off esteem."

This bit of history should be kept in mind by those who attend the NO in Latin. They should know that it was never Rome's intent to preserve the Latin language in the liturgy. This should be obvious when one considers the nature of the New Mass. Why would you say the NO in a language incomprehensible to the people? After all the NO is all about the people. It makes sense to say the Traditional Mass in Latin as it is addressed to God, but the NO is centered aroung the people, and thus should be said in the vernacular. Fr. Houghton, in his book makes it clear that he thinks the NO in Latin is the worst of all choices.

Thank you very much for this very interesting post. It, of course, makes perfect sense. It is useful to have a bit of the history to back it up, however. Your explanation at the end was particularly insightful, as it cuts to the heart of the issue: the new Mass is all about the people -- from the priest facing the congregation to the accessibility of the language and many of the other innovations -- while the Traditional Latin Mass is all about God. Anyone who has attended both will feel it instinctively.

It is impossible to deny the subtle -- or perhaps not so subtle -- reorientation (indeed the word is appropriate!) of the Church as exemplified by this reorientation of the Mass. Anyone familiar with JPII's intellectual history (extensive writings on humanism, etc.) will understand why he feels a "mystical" attraction to Vatican II. And why he has done as little as possible -- just enough to contain any open revolt -- to maintain the Traditional Mass.

We are talking about a new faith here, when taking all of this to its logical conclusion -- a move away from God and toward Man. I cannot speak for the King of Kings, but somehow I don't think this is what he had in mind for us. I think the decayed fruits of Vatican II are evidence enough of this displeasure.

I say again, you're over your head.

Well, that is probably one of the only things you are right about. Though you could have just gotten to the bottom line and called me stupid.

I guess I don't spend much time peeking around corners and searching for reasons to denigrate the present pope, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Or, to put it simply, I don't like to spend ANY time causing division and confusion among Catholics from the "right" or the "left."

Ultima, I would give my right arm if you were in my parish. I am trying so hard to persuade the parish priest to put the tabernacle back on the main altar, have a parish holy hour, have a parish rosary and revamp the CCD program. I have absolutely no help from anyone in my parish, in fact, I am kind of ostrasized by the "pastoral associate" nun and the parish priest. The choir director loves the Latin but the parish priest doesn't let him use traditional Latin music... and there aren't enough likeminded parishioners to support the choir director. Part of being Catholic is thinking of our brothers and sisters and not as just our own personal salvation. We are supposed to try to bring many souls to Jesus. You took the easy route by "opting out" instead of staying in the Church and working to bring the parish community back to Jesus. Your way is much easier.

Well, that is probably one of the only things you are right about. Though you could have just gotten to the bottom line and called me stupid.

Don't be ridiculous. I cannot speak for Ultima, but I certainly do not think you are stupid. I know you are looking for what is right. I do think you would find wonderful things if you would just open your mind a bit and not be afraid to embrace -- I mean really embrace -- the glorious 2,000 years of your religion. This didn't all start in the 1960s, despite what many of the revolutionaries would have us believe.

The beautiful art, the architecture, the glorious music -- these are all completely wrapped up in what it means to be Catholic. And the center of this Roman Catholic Faith is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass -- as it has been said for centuries, millenia.

This all together is our Faith. And no matter what the 1960s radicals do, no matter how deep into the catacombs they drive us, no matter what they intend to deprive us of, we will not go away. And how will we keep the faith in these terribly trying times? The miracle of the Traditional Latin Mass. That is our unchanging and unchangable link with all that it means to be Roman Catholic. Not just Mass on Sunday, but a Catholicity that permeates our entire lives -- down to our cells. It is what it means to be part of everything that has come before us, and to know that this is as close on earth as we can come to heaven. A gang of revolutionaries thought they could deny all this through their "modernization." What to do? Cling to the Mass. It is nearly all we have in these troubled times. Perhaps the Mass is offered by an independent priest, perhaps by the SSPX, perhaps by the FSSP, perhaps even by a devout and brave diocean priest -- who in many ways have the most difficult time of all. What is central is the Holy Sacrifice as it has been and will be, the Traditional Mass. To settle for anything concocted by 1960s revolutionaries when you can have the real thing is to turn your back on what it really means to be Roman Catholic. Trust me: when you begin to see things this way all else will begin to fall into place.

I don't think you are stupid at all--just badly informed like a lot of Catholics these days. Since they never knew what Catholicism was, they don't miss it. But the mysticism is gone, the sense of the sacred which was palpable when you walked inside any church before 1970. In its place is this mundane humanism hardly distinguishable from the platform of the Democratic Party. As for my being outside the Church, you are again showing ignorance. I am not. Even if you were to accept the idea that Archbishop Lefebvre were truly schismatic--and I don't for a moment--that would not mean those who attend an SSPX Mass are outside the Church as well. This is an outlandish idea spread by those who know better but despise the ancient Tradition that I and other traditionalists fight for.

And the center of this Roman Catholic Faith is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass -- as it has been said for centuries, millenia.

If the Mass was the center of the Tridentine Church, then why were little old ladies making the stations during Mass, or making a Novena at a side altar, or the parochial school children recited the Rosary during the Mass, stopping only for the consecration (which is the only thing they could see)? In fact, all these sacramentals came into being to give the faithful something to do while the priest mumbled to himself as he faced away from the congregation.

Private spirituality was at the center of the Tridentine Church, even during the celebration of the Mass.

"Where two or more are gathered, there I am in the midst of them." Thankfully, the Holy Spirit inspired John XXII to remind Catholicism that Jesus died for individuals, but He founded a community of believers.

Salvation is not just achieved by proceeding, single file, towards heaven, mumbling in a language no one understands.

But the mysticism is gone, the sense of the sacred which was palpable when you walked inside any church before 1970.

What you call "sense of the sacred" was often befuddlement. When you walk into something where a language is being spoken that you don't understand, respectful silence is the only appropriate attitude. Do that a few times, and, pretty soon, the ingenuity of human beings comes into play. They start praying in a language they understand!

Novenas, the Rosary, the Stations, all prayed in the vernacular, were regularly celebrated in parish churches during Sunday Mass and nobody blinked an eye!

It is what it means to be part of everything that has come before us, and to know that this is as close on earth as we can come to heaven.

If a Church full of people doing their own thing, while the priest does his own thing is your idea of being close to heaven, then thank God there are "many mansions."

Don't be ridiculous

Like I said, why don't you just get to the bottom line.

Anyhow...you are preaching to the choir. I attend the beautiful Tridentine Latin Mass at "Holy Trinity Catholic Church" as often as I can, using my grandmother's 1962 missal.

You guys jump to conclusions and are downright snobby in your treatment of Catholics who are in union with the Pope. For instance, just because one is not in your camp, you assume one must therefore be ignorant of the majesty and glory of the Church.

So sad that you don't work as hard on bringing your wisdom and knowledge to your neighborhood N.O. parish so that others may be exposed to and inspired by the beauty of our ancient Catholic tradition ... but no, like ultima, you keep it all to yourself and safely navigate the calm waters of your Trad parish...

Please see my post #311.

You guys are elite religious snobs.

I have no idea where to begin... "outlandish idea spread by those who know better but despise the ancient Tradition that I and other traditionalists fight for" ... this is so full of pride and false piety! What are you fighting for? To cause confusion and try to drag bodies away from Rome? How are you fighting? By staying safe in your own little parishes? Oh my word... talk about brave!!!

Sorry, I guess I am "just badly informed like a lot of Catholics these days" (don't forget to thank God that he gave you the grace not to be one of the unwashed masses - there but for the grace of God go I, and all that) because I am obedient to Rome, even when the going gets tough.

Trust me: when you begin to see things this way all else will begin to fall into place.

I don't trust somebody who picks the name of an anarchist movement for his moniker on a website.

Things have fallen into place for me, and for millions of other Roman Catholics: we celebrate the Lord's Sacrifice in a language we understand, and at a celebration that is not clandestinely performed as if there are things we mere laymen should not see.

You are free to celebrate the Tridentine Mass wherever you can find a priest or bishop who is sympathetic to your pleadings. But one thing is clear:

You WILL NOT FORCE millions of Roman Catholics to celebrate the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in a language they do not understand, EVER AGAIN!

The condescension you Tridentines have exhibited over the past year on this website has turned off more people than you know (if my e-mails are indicative of anything).

You should work toward a separate Rite, as the Eastern Rite has its own liturgy and worship. I will be more than happy to help you do this.

The Western Rite is Novus Ordo, celebrated in the vernacular, with inculturated elements in it.

THAT is not going to change.

You guys jump to conclusions and are downright snobby in your treatment of Catholics who are in union with the Pope.

What on earth are you talking about??? I am in union with the pope. Who the hell are you to suggest I am not? You really are terribly mis-informed.

And you are downright unpleasant at the time I tried to reach out and mend fences. So much for that.

Ultima is right: you are just terribly mis-informed.

mumbling in a language no one understands.

Maybe it's just you, Sink. I have been going to Latin Mass for only three years now and, having grown up with no Latin, I feel pretty comfortable in the language. But your whole premise is distorted anyway: the Mass is not about you or me or whether we understand every word uttered by the priest. It is about God. That is why the priest faces east rather than toward the congregation. You are still hooked on the radical idea that it is all about you. It aint.

When you sarcastically suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre's use of a canon law provision to get around excommunication was somehow not something he should have been proud of, you again show you don't understand the situation. What he did was honorable. Why? Because he refused to obey an order which would have destroyed traditional Catholicism. Since you see it only from the perspective of disobedience, and not from the perspective of the emergency caused by a frontal assault on Catholic tradition, you can't see the nobility of his action. Not all disobedience is bad. Obedience should be in service to the faith. If it instead harms the faith, it is false and should be shunned.

About vocations before Vatican II--another point you think I've exaggerated. Back in the fifties my father attended a Jesuit novitiate-juniorate in Pennsylvania. The vocations from a SINGLE province--MD and PA--filled the house with hundreds of straight young men in their late teens and early twenties. And that was just one province of one order in a given year. Nor were they scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill up the place. On the contrary, standards were extremely rigorous intellectually and morally. The Jesuits especially were tough to get into. Many young men of promise were turned away. Compare this with the Jesuits today--a handful of vocations, maybe five or six, for the WHOLE COUNTRY, too many of them gay.

I don't trust somebody who picks the name of an anarchist movement for his moniker on a website.

Don't be a retard: the Zviadist were a pro-American, anti-communist, anti-Soviet movement in former Soviet Georgia. They were destroyed by Communist dictator "Bloody Eduard" Shevardnadze. I took their name to honor their courage to fight for democratic values and pay with their lives. The Clintonistas hated them, but then again they hated most of the anti-communists in the former communist world. I guess you are on the side of the Clintonistas...or more likely you just don't know what you are talking about.

But hey, if you have no argument to make on the matter at hand why not attack a poster for something completely unrelated to the matter at hand...

Sinkspur, your post calls to mind something I read about the Orthodox Mass. Something about warning newcomers about "all the commotion" going on in the congregation of Mass before the consecration. I'm pinging The Reader David to this thread to see if the devotions you're speaking about are similar to all that "commotion" in the Orthodox Mass.

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.