Young Priests Push For Pre-vat2 Customs

[mortify]

[b]A Return to the Latin Mass[/b]
[b]Clashes with congregants may erupt as a growing number of young priests push for a revival of pre-Vatican II customs[/b]
By Eric Ferkenhoff
Posted 6/17/07
[url="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070617/25church.htm"]http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...17/25church.htm[/url]

[quote]
Nearly two generations of Catholics now have grown up in a post-Vatican II world, worshipping in a church that celebrates mass in their local languages and, at least to some extent, embraces modern customs as much as it once rejected them.

So it seemed anathema when the Vatican confirmed recently that Pope Benedict XVI would relax restrictions on celebrating the 16th-century Tridentin Mass, citing "a new and renewed" interest in the ancient Latin liturgy, especially among younger Catholics.

Given the fierce fight that preceded Vatican II—the liturgical and doctrinal reforms of the mid-1960s that sought to make the church more accessible—a similar war would seem needed to overturn them. But a movement is building at seminaries nationwide to do just that: In addition to restoring the Latin mass, young priests are calling for greater devotion to the Virgin Mary, more frequent praying of the rosary, and priests turning away from the congregation as they once did. Perhaps most controversially, they also advocate a dimished role for women, who since Vatican II have been allowed to participate in the mass as lay altar servers and readers [color="#FF0000"][In the Tridentine rite only the Priest handles the Eucharist, so this would be a "bias" against other men as well].[/color]

Such changes would seem to aggravate the church's growing attendance problems(in 2003, 40 percent of Roman Catholics said they had attended church in the past week, down from 74 percent in 1958) as well as enhance its air of exclusivity—the notion of Catholicism as the only true faith. Yet proponents of the movement argue that just the opposite holds: More people will attend mass if the traditions are richer and the doctrine stricter. The Latin mass, they say, would restore a sense of community they believe was diluted when the church allowed local culture to override tradition. In Chicago alone, mass is now said in some 50 languages.

"The traditional Latin mass simply excels at conveying the majesty and mystery of God," says Michael Dunnigan, a canon lawyer and chairman of the pro-Latin mass group, Una Voce America. Rejecting comparisons to fundamentalism, he denies that proponents are simply seeking more structure and discipline. "At the heart of the movement is a longing for beauty and an attitude of profound reverence," he says. Andrew Vogel, a seminarian from Rochester, Minn., notes that before Vatican II, mass attendance was at its highest and seminaries were full. "People just think we must have been doing something right," he says.

In today's Catholic churches, priests are free to celebrate a contemporary Latin mass, but they cannot celebrate the Latin mass as it was structured before 1962 without permission of their bishop. It is this restriction that the pope is considering lifting.

The proponents of the old Latin mass are said to number no more than 2 percent of Catholics, and polls show that the majority of Catholics embrace the reforms of Vatican II. But the Latin movement may be strong enough to carve a divide. Thomas Reese [color="#FF0000"][The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith ordered this man to step down from his editorial post after controversial material concerning celibacy and the ordination of women was published. No wonder the media cites him.][/color], a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University predicts "a clash of cultures between clergy and the more liberal congregations as more of these conservative priests graduate and make their presence known."

He predicts that other old practices will be restored as the Vatican tries to impose the conservative values of Benedict on a more liberal world. "This is so much more about politics than it is about Latin and liturgy," Reese says.

According to published reports, the pope was, among other things, trying to bridge a divide with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, even though that group has expressed concern about reversing the gains of Vatican II.

The Latin movement also has its detractors outside the faith. Jewish leaders take offense with older rites' references to Jews as faithless, and they worry that a revival of the old traditions could foster anti-Semitism.[color="#FF0000"][In the Tridentine Rite we pray for the conversion of all who haven't accepted Jesus, including the Jews. I guess this somehow leads to anti-semitism? Btw, do you suppose those leaders would ever change their worship to appease us?][/color]

But such arguments seemed far from the minds of the 20-odd worshipers who gathered last Friday for the Latin mass at Chicago's St. John Cantius Church. "You put the old rite and the new side by side, and there really is no comparison," says Simon Varnas, 35. "The old rite is far superior. It is more conducive to prayer, recollection, and personal dedication."

This story appears in the June 25, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='mortify' post='1297950' date='Jun 18 2007, 05:54 PM']But such arguments seemed far from the minds of the 20-odd worshipers who gathered last Friday for the Latin mass at Chicago's St. John Cantius Church. "You put the old rite and the new side by side, and there really is no comparison," says Simon Varnas, 35. "The old rite is far superior. It is more conducive to prayer, recollection, and personal dedication."[/quote]
It is not far superior. In fact, when you put both orders of the Roman rite side by side, they are substantially the same. Prayer, recollection, and personal dedication are all subjective, and are found at both Liturgies. They have their own particular strength and beauty, and they both have a place in the Church, along with the other Liturgies that we celebrate.

[quote]Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.

--Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, "Sacrsanctum Concilium"[/quote]

[geetarplayer]

[quote]Such changes would seem to aggravate the church's growing attendance problems (in 2003, 40 percent of Roman Catholics said they had attended church in the past week, down from 74 percent in 1958) as well as enhance its air of exclusivity—the notion of Catholicism as the only true faith.[/quote]

That first part about attendance doesn't make any sense. They're implying that the pre-Vatican II liturgy would cause less Catholics to go to Massby comparing the pre-Vatican II attendance (74% in 1958) with the post-Vatican II attendance (40% in 2003). Wouldn't a return to pre-Vatican II liturgy then cause the numbers to rise, not drop? Not necessarily, I suppose.

And the part about Catholicism being the only true faith is true. It's only a bad thing if you aren't Catholic.

-Mark

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

That's awesome.

I attended a young priests first Mass yesterday morning. He wore a fiddleback, and the Liturgy was problably the most beautiful Mass I have ever attended.

I personally believe that the Normitive Mass can be just as beautiful as the Tridentine Mass if done properly. So many people, however, take such great liberties with the Normitive Mass that it sometimes resembles a Protestant worship service rather than a sacrafice...this is certainly a shame.

[mortify]

Although both orders are valid and if properly executed make present the Self Sacrifice of Christ, [mod]Edited. --Era Might[/mod].

[mod]Edited. --Era Might[/mod]Although ultimately a sacrifice takes place at the mass, if one is not catechized properly, it's very easy to overlook the Mystery.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1297961' date='Jun 18 2007, 05:09 PM']It is not far superior. In fact, when you put both orders of the Roman rite side by side, they are substantially the same. Prayer, recollection, and personal dedication are all subjective, and are found at both Liturgies. They have their own particular strength and beauty, and they both have a place in the Church, along with the other Liturgies that we celebrate.[/quote]
I totally agree.

One line from the article caught my eye:
[quote]But the Latin movement may be strong enough to carve a divide. [/quote]I hate to see the Latin Mass, which is a beautiful means of worshiping God, become such a focus that it causes a divide. I'd argue that people who are willing to let this happen should seriously consider whether their love of the Latin Mass has become an idol, detracting from worship of God rather than facilitating it.

[quote name='mortify'][mod]Edited. --Era Might[/mod][/quote]
Bull-oney

[Moneybags]

Excellent article. [mod]Edited. --Era Might[/mod]

[mortify]

For those who read my edited statement I apologize if I was offensive.

[quote][quote]But the Latin movement may be strong enough to carve a divide.[/quote]
I hate to see the Latin Mass, which is a beautiful means of worshiping God, become such a focus that it causes a divide. I'd argue that people who are willing to let this happen should seriously consider whether their love of the Latin Mass has become an idol, detracting from worship of God rather than facilitating it. [/quote]

I agree

[jeffpugh]

Interesting that younger priests are turning back to the old. It is a great paradigm shift that usually happens when the pendulum swings too far one way. I personally haven't been to a Tridentine mass before. I know I'm missing out. But, the Novus Ordo mass done in Latin can be beautiful too. I enjoy singing at the one in my area that occurs every third week of the month (followed by a pot luck ).

[Sojourner]

Thanks for the edits, Era.

[quote name='mortify' post='1298203' date='Jun 18 2007, 09:03 PM']For those who read my edited statement I apologize if I was offensive.

I agree[/quote]
I'm glad you do.


This is not directed toward anyone in particular. I'm going to try to be non-offensive in making the following statement, but if I am offensive please edit me for charity or whatever.

Not long after I became Catholic (and somewhat even in the process of converting) I was pretty frustrated with what I was seeing in my parish and in some others I'd visited. I'd formed this ideal of Catholicism when I was converting, and the reality was far from it. The music was not good, people were not knowledgeable about their faith, and it was a shock to go to a community where I didn't have many friends after having been part of a very loving and warm church community. I had some friends who went to a Latin Mass church not far from where I lived, and I went with them a few times. It is really beautiful, and lots of the things I had problems with at the parish I was a member of were different. The music was beautiful, people were knowledgeable about their faith, and it was a fairly welcoming community.

But then I started to examine my reasons for attending TLM. Music: that's a preference. Good music is not a necessity, it's a privilege. Community: That can grow with time. Poor catechesis: How does retreating to a place I feel comfortable help the church to grow? What I [i]really[/i] didn't like growing inside me was the attitude that by attending TLM I was somehow better than all the Catholics who don't appreciate the treasure they have in the Mass. So I made the executive decision to give it up and attend an NO Mass. I have never regretted that decision. There have been times it has been a struggle, but I've learned quite a bit about "offering it up" in the time since I became Catholic, so I've been able to put that to good use.

I know people who travel long distances to go to TLM. I know people who have left good, orthodox parishes -- uprooted their families -- just because they felt TLM was better. I now increasingly have difficulty respecting that kind of decision. I think it has the potential to create great divisions in the church. I think it creates a situation where disrespect for Church leadership can flourish. I think it takes good, orthodox families out of parishes where these influences are [i]badly needed[/i]. For these reasons, I am inclined to see these types of choices as being motivated more by selfishness and pride than out of a desire for holiness.

While Latin Mass is part of our church's heritage, and a great treasure which should be valued by all of us, an improper emphasis on it can be horribly detrimental to the overall health of the church.

[mortify]

Peace Terra,

[quote]What I really didn't like growing inside me was the attitude that by attending TLM I was somehow better than all the Catholics who don't appreciate the treasure they have in the Mass.[/quote]

Please understand that was your personal view, and if that's what was developing in you perhaps you were not ready for the TLM. I have met too many a holy Catholic who attends the novus ordo to be able to judge someone simply based on mass attendance.

The general opinion is that being traditional is an [i]option[/i], but is it? What is tradition and why does anyone care about it? Numerous Popes condemned the heresy of Modernism, what were they talking about? A particular age? Technological advancement? [i]Something[/i] else? Were those Popes right?

Edited June 19, 2007 by mortify

[Era Might]

Being traditional is not an option. However, being traditional does not mean attending the Tridentine Mass or speaking Latin. Being traditional means thinking with the Church. Many traditions come and go, because they are only ways to live the faith, they are not the faith itself. The reason why Latin became the language of the Roman rite was because it was the vernacular, and they changed from Greek. This eventually became a fixed Liturgical language, but the Eastern Churches always used the vernacular, and they were no less traditional for it.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='mortify' post='1298266' date='Jun 18 2007, 10:42 PM']Peace Terra,
Please understand that was your personal view, and if that's what was developing in you perhaps you were not ready for the TLM. I have met too many a holy Catholic who attends the novus ordo to be able to judge someone simply based on mass attendance.

The general opinion is that being traditional is an [i]option[/i], but is it? What is tradition and why does anyone care about it? Numerous Popes condemned the heresy of Modernism, what were they talking about? A particular age? Technological advancement? [i]Something[/i] else? Were those Popes right?[/quote]
I do understand that was my personal view; I did, after all, use first person in expressing it. And, I didn't attribute my attitude to anyone else who attends TLM.

My concerns were:
[quote name='Terra Firma']I know people who travel long distances to go to TLM. I know people who have left good, orthodox parishes -- uprooted their families -- just because they felt TLM was better. I now increasingly have difficulty respecting that kind of decision. I think it has the potential to create great divisions in the church. I think it creates a situation where disrespect for Church leadership can flourish. I think it takes good, orthodox families out of parishes where these influences are badly needed. For these reasons, I am inclined to see these types of choices as being motivated more by selfishness and pride than out of a desire for holiness.[/quote]

[TotusTuusMaria]

J.M.J.

I totally see what this article is talking about. We have some really great seminarians.

[quote]I know people who travel long distances to go to TLM. I know people who have left good, orthodox parishes -- uprooted their families -- just because they felt TLM was better. I now increasingly have difficulty respecting that kind of decision. I think it has the potential to create great divisions in the church. I think it creates a situation where disrespect for Church leadership can flourish. I think it takes good, orthodox families out of parishes where these influences are badly needed. For these reasons, I am inclined to see these types of choices as being motivated more by selfishness and pride than out of a desire for holiness.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but I cannot agree. Can we truly say what their motivation is for attending the Latin Mass? Does it really matter what their motivation is behind it? Is it even our place to speculate what their motivation is? Maybe they just honestly find in it a sense of the sacred and see in it beauty. The Latin Mass is beautiful. If they want to attend it let them. I believe the rift is caused when both sides cannot respect the decisions of the other and begin to judge each other. It is a preferance.

I say let them be. They are good families. They strive to live holy lives. If they wish to attend the TLM let them. If they wish to drive an hour of their way... hey, if it is for Jesus and it is their gas then I say what is the big deal?

All of the families I know that attend the TLM serve the Church as a whole very well.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1298293' date='Jun 19 2007, 01:48 AM']I understand what you are saying, but I cannot agree. Can we truly say what their motivation is for attending the Latin Mass? Does it really matter what their motivation is behind it? Is it even our place to speculate what their motivation is? Maybe they just honestly find in it a sense of the sacred and see in it beauty. The Latin Mass is beautiful. If they want to attend it let them. I believe the rift is caused when both sides cannot respect the decisions of the other and begin to judge each other. It is a preferance.

I say let them be. They are good families. They strive to live holy lives. If they wish to attend the TLM let them. If they wish to drive an hour of their way... hey, if it is for Jesus and it is their gas then I say what is the big deal?

All of the families I know that attend the TLM serve the Church as a whole very well.[/quote]
Every time you choose something, you are also at the same time not choosing other things. For example, when I chose to become Catholic, I also chose not to continue being a member at the Presbyterian church I had been attending. I said by my choice, "Catholicism is better" and "I no longer wish to actively engage in worship and pursue communal relationships here." Now, in my case, my decision to move was not that I preferred Catholic worship style, or that there were better donuts, but that I believed Jesus is real in the Eucharist, and knew I would not find that in the Protestant church I was attending or in any Protestant church I could attend.

When a family leaves a parish they've been attending and where they've built relationships for a TLM parish, they have no such noble arguments to back them up. It most certainly is a preference, and what they're saying to the community they leave is, "I value this music and this style of liturgy more than I value continuing in relationship with you all and contributing to the growth and holiness of this parish." In essence, they are washing their feet of that community.

I feel no call to respect a decision based on such reasons. Giving preference weight over the good of the parish you would otherwise be attending is, in my mind, an inherently selfish act. You're saying, "My pleasure is more important to me than you are." That kind of attitude flies in the face of what it means to be Catholic, of the whole idea of sacrificing individual desires for the good of the whole. Paul urges us in Philippians 2 to, in humility, consider others better than ourselves. How is driving an hour to satisfy a preference fulfilling this exhortation?

And if a person is unable to get a sense of beauty and the sacred in any Mass then the place to start is with his or her own heart, not the outward trappings of the liturgical setting. As long as Jesus is there EVERY Mass has a sense of the sacred and beauty.