Masculinity and the Liturgy

[eightydeuce82]

Ok everyone this is my third attempt at posting some topics about masculinity and manliness in the Catholic world. The first thread I posted was called Dressing like a man for Mass:

catholicgentleman.net/2015/04/dressing-like-a-man-for-mass/

This went ok but quickly devolved. None the less I think what was said before the thread was closed was good. It certainly was interesting to see everyone’s perspective on the matter and how our opinions differ greatly. This is certainly okay in my book. I think with this one people lost the idea behind the article which was certainly about manliness and proper dress as a way of evangelizing or as the author put it eMANgelizing.

The second article I posted was Calling all men and was a article on the Mass conversion of men :

catholicgentleman.net/2015/04/the-case-for-a-mass-conversion-of-men/

This one got mixed reviews and that certainly was reflected in the comments. I still think this was a good article and a great discussion topic even though the statistics were questioned (as usual) and it was eventually deleted with out any indication as to why. The comments remained civil.

With that said I am going to try this again and touch on the topic of manliness again and see where it goes here is another article from the same place by the same person on Manliness of the Liturgy, Please remember this articles target is MEN and is an attempt to help us find ideas on how to get men reengaged with the Church. Please remember this is simply an opinion of a guy who like me is deeply concerned with some things that are presenting themselves in our day in age. I fully realize the people reading this and commenting here are probably NOT lukewarm and have a great zeal for the faith. So please keep the discussion respectful and following the FORUM rules.

This time I will just post the link and let you all read it yourselves:

catholicgentleman.net/2013/09/masculinity-and-the-liturgy/

I’ve gotten some really good feedback for these posts so I would like to keep sharing.

 

[kozlosap]

I read the article and what struck me was that it was, in its entirety, a plea for the Latin Mass. I take what the author, Sam, writes with a grain of salt. Having the priest face away from the congregation has nothing to do with men not being invested in the Sacrifice of the Mass nor does celebrating in the vernacular. I was hoping that this article would be full of real suggestions for bringing men back into active participation, not just another piece about how the author loved the high mass in the Church of England because of the pomp and circumstance and when he attended a NO mass he was greatly disappointed by the lack of said. I attend a huge Jesuit parish where the men, both old and young are very involved at all levels parish life and management. Our Knights of Columbus chapter is very active. I wish you luck in trying to find answers to this problem.

 

[ProVobis]

So many comments already made on that site. I don’t know if I can add anything new.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I read the article and what struck me was that it was, in its entirety, a plea for the Latin Mass. I take what the author, Sam, writes with a grain of salt. Having the priest face away from the congregation has nothing to do with men not being invested in the Sacrifice of the Mass nor does celebrating in the vernacular. I was hoping that this article would be full of real suggestions for bringing men back into active participation, not just another piece about how the author loved the high mass in the Church of England because of the pomp and circumstance and when he attended a NO mass he was greatly disappointed by the lack of said. I attend a huge Jesuit parish where the men, both old and young are very involved at all levels parish life and management. Our Knights of Columbus chapter is very active. I wish you luck in trying to find answers to this problem.

I get where your going with that most definitely remember this is his opinion and it also happens to be mine. So id say that its your opinion that it has nothing to do with masculinity. I think he made a good case and certainly see it your way as well. Yes this certainly focused on the TLM since that’s what he attends because of his high Anglican past. It sounds nice to have a parish such as yours and with all the involvement too. I wish that was the norm with the majority of smaller parishes here. I think anyone who reads there articles who does not prefer the TLM will think its a grain of salt issue don’t you think?

 

[eightydeuce82]

So many comments already made on that site. I don’t know if I can add anything new.

HAHA typical unmediated comboxes! But you have to read the comments ALWAYS! They are the best part sometimes.

In all seriousness this is a great site with many topics and some really great writing. I believe a bunch of folks have endorsed it including many writers for catholic answers.

I was kind of going by the assumption folks wouldn’t read those

 

[wynd]

HAHA typical unmediated comboxes! But you have to read the comments ALWAYS! They are the best part sometimes.

In all seriousness this is a great site with many topics and some really great writing. I believe a bunch of folks have endorsed it including many writers for catholic answers.

I was kind of going by the assumption folks wouldn’t read those

I like this comment:

Catholic Gentleman, Latin is not essential to anything; it is important to the traditions of the Roman Church, but not essential. No, Vatican II did not abolish Latin from the liturgy for the reason of its importance in the tradition, but that cannot diminish the fact that the Council also recognized the good of a vernacular liturgy as witnessed to by her Eastern brothers there. Does that mean there should be no Latin in it? Not at all. It does, however, recognize the importance of people worshipping in their native languages. Remember, the liturgy of Rome was in Greek until Gregory the Great. As for subjective evaluations of which language is more “masculine” than another, I find Church Slavonic and Greek much more masculine than Latin, but that’s a terrible reason to pick a liturgical language, especially when you make a big deal about objectivity.

To all, beware the heresy of the Three Languages. Latin is no more holy nor more inherently suited to the liturgy than any other.

I’m as traditional as anyone when it comes to liturgy, but I never got the fixation on Latin. Why can’t there be a reverent vernacular Mass (EF or OF)?

 

[pianistclare]

I like this comment:

I’m as traditional as anyone when it comes to liturgy, but I never got the fixation on Latin. Why can’t there be a reverent vernacular Mass (EF or OF)?

There can, and there is.
Apparently it angers people no end.

 

[eightydeuce82]

There can, and there is.
Apparently it angers people no end.

Naw I don’t think it angers anyone and honestly I have been to quite a few very reverent masses not in Latin. However ive been to more that were not and that seems to be the reoccurring theme even among non TLM Catholics. The only time I have ever seen hostility towards anyone enemas was towards traditional folk especially here on the forums.

As for the other poster above and not understanding the draw towards Latin? Well that’s the language of our church. Its traditional and it is beautiful. Its the basis for most modern languages. It is universal (church wise that is) oh and science.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I like this comment:

I’m as traditional as anyone when it comes to liturgy, but I never got the fixation on Latin. Why can’t there be a reverent vernacular Mass (EF or OF)?

That poor mike in the comboxes got lambasted!

 

[pianistclare]

Naw I don’t think it angers anyone and honestly I have been to quite a few very reverent masses not in Latin. However ive been to more that were not and that seems to be the reoccurring theme even among non TLM Catholics. The only time I have ever seen hostility towards anyone enemas was towards traditional folk especially here on the forums.

As for the other poster above and not understanding the draw towards Latin? Well that’s the language of our church. Its traditional and it is beautiful. Its the basis for most modern languages. It is universal (church wise that is) oh and science.

Well, with all due respect…you haven’t been here long enough to see those threads.
I’m out…before this gets locked.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Well, with all due respect…you haven’t been here long enough to see those threads.
I’m out…before this gets locked.

Is that judged by post count or how long I’ve actually been registered. You know you can read the posts with out registering right?

Why would it get locked? Are we not having a fruitful conversation?

 

[kozlosap]

I get where your going with that most definitely remember this is his opinion and it also happens to be mine. So id say that its your opinion that it has nothing to do with masculinity. I think he made a good case and certainly see it your way as well. Yes this certainly focused on the TLM since that’s what he attends because of his high Anglican past. It sounds nice to have a parish such as yours and with all the involvement too. I wish that was the norm with the majority of smaller parishes here. I think anyone who reads there articles who does not prefer the TLM will think its a grain of salt issue don’t you think?

LOL! I’ll add another grain of Hawaiian sea salt. I was around before Vatican ll and although I was a child, I don’t think that men were more invested because the mass was not in the vernacular. Once again, this is just one old ladies opinion. I really enjoy these sociological discussions, however!

 

[eightydeuce82]

LOL! I’ll add another grain of Hawaiian sea salt. I was around before Vatican ll and although I was a child, I don’t think that men were more invested because the mass was not in the vernacular. Once again, this is just one old ladies opinion. I really enjoy these sociological discussions, however!

Awesome at least someone does lol! Is Hawaiian sea salt really big granular wise?

If you actually go to the webpage its kida more geared to men and for men to rediscover manliness. Mush of the articles are geared toward the loss of the masculine and opinions on how to re establish that (plenty on St. Joseph and Fatherhood as well). I have heard it said by tons of folks including may females that the last few generations of men have been well how do I say this very feminine. So really I could say that men in general are less manly as they were in the past. I’m can say that with a lot of confidence. So does it tie directly into the Catholic man…you bet it does…although maybe not the form of the Mass (but that just happens to be the authors preference). You know that kind of up hill both ways with out shoes in the winter kind of thing.

There is one thing we cant deny the Traditional seminaries for the FSSP and the like are packed full! Their Masses are Packed full and they aren’t packed with folks who actually experienced pre VATII either…which I think catches many off guard. It sure did me when I walked into our local TLM and didn’t see one guy over 40…lots of women and babies. I take that back there was that one holdover guy who I used as a reference as to when to stand! Thank God for him!

I’m not sure why this dismays so many people but I have found nothing but wonderfully nice people there. They all dress well, the women wear mantillas. the all go to confession directly before the mass and the are all very reverent and in awe of what they are participating in. Yet I don’t get to attend frequently and attend the NO and serve as an usher and the feelings and comments toward the traditional folks is less than charitable. Most of the traditional Catholics I know who are involved in the FSSP and others communicate regularly and the feeling seems to be negative across the country. Everywhere I have been it has been. I think its great seeing such young faces everywhere I go and knowing we will have traditional priests for a very long time if these statistics keep up. Yet everyone treats it as a fad. Just boggles my mind I guess. It certainly is always met with contention here on these forums.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think that men were more invested because the mass was not in the vernacular.

Actually in my experience women are as much interested in and passionate about Latin as the men, if not more so. In fact, if you remember, it took a lady journalist outside the Vatican to first realize that Pope Benedict had resigned, when he announced it in Latin.

It seems the first translation of the Mass was not loved as much as the educators of the time decided against keeping Latin in the schools, something I think many regretted later.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Actually in my experience women are as much interested in and passionate about Latin as the men, if not more so. In fact, if you remember, it took a lady journalist outside the Vatican to first realize that Pope Benedict had resigned, when he announced it in Latin.

It seems the first translation of the Mass was not loved as much as the educators of the time decided against keeping Latin in the schools, something I think many regretted later.

Id say you are right…of course the article and the website is kind of a guy manliness thing but every TLM I have been to there are just as many women as men there!

 

[ProVobis]

Id say you are right…of course the article and the website is kind of a guy manliness thing but every TLM I have been to there are just as many women as men there!

It’s probably about 50-50 but with a younger crowd.

 

[mh2007]

The article concludes…the liturgy shouldn’t be weak and trite - or it won’t be inspiring. A return to the sacred and reverent will launch a new ‘dynamism’…increased conversions, more vocations, and men again taking the lead in matters of faith.

That would be refreshing, and spiritually invigorating. If it were only that simple!

I remember well the initial change from Latin to the vernacular. Reduced habits by the nuns. Guitar mass - to get youth more involved - instead of somber, traditional music, etc. Even if the Church, and the liturgy had remained traditional and Mass was in Latin, I’m not sure it would have stemmed the social tide in the U.S. and western Europe. Society really changed as people gained mobility. The parish was no longer the center of social activity as it had been in the 1920’s through the 1950’s.

Society also changed as women became ‘liberated’ from traditional, limited roles.
For that matter an entire generation (baby boomers) questioned everything, distrusted government, and formal institutions. Watergate exposed corrupt leadership. I believe that entire generation was lost in the late 1960’s through the late 1970’s. By and large most of the boomers rejected everything.

Rising economic tides also elevated living standards, and provided a lot of discretionary income that fueled more change.

I believe it would take entirely different economics to change society going forward. If the U.S. economy lapsed into a depression, or if there was a global conflict…people would be motivated to develop more faith. Church attendance and vocational involvement would re-emerge. But at this point, the Millennials are going a different way. They process information differently, and don’t readily identify with traditional Churches. The secular world and sensory bombardment block spiritual development.

Religion is still there for those who want to pursue a sense of values, and live on purpose for the benefit of society. In other words, to identify with a faith structure, spirituality, and a sense of community. God gave everyone a free will. People must be motivated to join / pursue more traditional faith practices / forms. It will take a major shift to get the U.S. and western Europeans re-engaged with traditional faith structures.

Like the early Christians, it looks to me like we must band together in common faith and prayer, and worship according to our traditional beliefs.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Religion is still there for those who want to pursue a sense of values, and live on purpose for the benefit of society. In other words, to identify with a faith structure, spirituality, and a sense of community. God gave everyone a free will. People must be motivated to join / pursue more traditional faith practices / forms. It will take a major shift to get the U.S. and western Europeans re-engaged with traditional faith structures.

If we really want to get traditional though, we must return to Gospel values that have almost nothing to do with these externals of liturgy. Rather, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, forgive 70 times 7, see Christ in the least of his people.

 

[ProVobis]

Religion is still there for those who want to pursue a sense of values, and live on purpose for the benefit of society. In other words, to identify with a faith structure, spirituality, and a sense of community. God gave everyone a free will. People must be motivated to join / pursue more traditional faith practices / forms.

Yes, but I wonder how much of that we still believe, having now studied the psychology of adjustment, child behavior, among other things. The confession lines aren’t showing much fear of God. Presumption of salvation has probably grown since the 70’s and this I feel is most unfortunate. But as we’ve also accepted risk in other areas of our lives, why should religion be any different?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Yes, but I wonder how much of that we still believe, having now studied the psychology of adjustment, child behavior, among other things. The confession lines aren’t showing much fear of God. Presumption of salvation has probably grown since the 70’s and this I feel is most unfortunate. But as we’ve also accepted risk in other areas of our lives, why should religion be any different?

As my priest always puts it and he says this with glee and sometime almost gets himself in trouble…VATTII Changed everything and we now focus on the transcendence of God rather than the other stuff like what will get you to hell. I think that about sums it up.

I certainly think the focus has changed and we most certainly focus on different aspects but I feel like we neglect as my priest says it “those things that will get you in hell”. Along with culture and a generally protestantized way of understanding theology that as long as you believe in Christ your going to heaven mentality we are in for a shock.

I had another guy that teaches RCIA tell me one time (this guy hates the TLM BTW and anything pre VATII) that before the council The confession lines were long and the communion lines short and after the confession lines were short and the communion lines long! I looked at him in amazement and just wondered “and when did that become a good thing to ignore Paul’s warning?”

In my opinion we have lost a sense of the sacred. Pope Benedict commented on this many times before and during his pontificate. With that has come a lax attitude towards the mass and hence all the things ive posted about for the last few days. I know they are controversial and many didn’t like what they said but that doesn’t make them any less true because they rub people the wrong way. These are known things even in Rome and honestly most just brush them off but these are no small issues they are big enough to cause groups to break away and that is an indication something is wrong somewhere that needs attention.

Now I know the church has always had break away’s but I could understand them early on when theology and doctrine were being hammered out. I get the whole reformation (that must have been a huge deal back then for the lay and ordained alike) but most of that stuff was hammered out by VATI and the Church had drawn clear lines and settled much of anything that was in the grey. To have groups leave or just go irregular is scary and to ignore it is even scarier.