Masculinity and the Liturgy

[wynd]

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.

Why not both?

 

[wynd]

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.

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.

It is said that Luther won the heart of Germany by his hymns more than by his theology. We cannot give our whole selves to a faith, even when our minds find it true and our consciences find it good, if our hearts find it ugly, shallow, and joyless. We cannot wholeheartedly embrace a faith without beauty, any more than a faith without goodness or truth. For the beauty of the liturgy is not an extra ‘decoration,’ but an index of the truth and the goodness of the Catholic Faith. Thus, a shallow and ugly liturgy is almost always an indication of doctrinal shallowness and moral laxity as well. For liturgy is not something added on to doctrine and morality, creed and code, from without; it is that very creed and code, faith and works, truth and goodness, made visible.

–Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity

 

[porthos11]

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.

No.

Unless we return to the sacredness of the liturgy, all these things, such as feeding the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc. will all fail.

The Liturgy, not works of mercy, is the source and summit of the Christian life. All other aspects of the Christian life derive their power from the Mass, and they are all oriented back toward the Mass.

Do we want to feed the hungry? Then make the Mass majestic again. That includes the externals.

 

[CB_Catholic]

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!

I was raised pre-Vatican II and I distinctly remember that more women than men attended Mass. Sometimes they just dropped their wives off (most people only had one car), or stayed outside and smoked or whatever. It had nothing to do with Latin, as even today, with Masses in the vernacular, more women than men attend and are involved in church activities.

 

[eightydeuce82]

wynd:
That is a great quote! I’ve never seen it before. Also to your other post about having both are we not the church that says that very thing on a variety of other topics! Both and…

I think when the TLM comes up people get defensive. They think those of us that promote it for its reverence and beauty are somehow attacking the NO and saying that its not that way. Certainly and unfortunately this can be said in a lot of parishes everywhere but not in all. The NO can be very reverent and beautiful. This isn’t a shallow attempt either just like when we say people should dress well for church this is not a shallow statement as if we think its not what God sees on the inside that matters…Yet people continue to paint this picture of shallowness for the traditionalists. The only thing I see is an attempt by the laity and some traditional priests trying to combat the loss of the sacred and return to a outward expression of reverence and a sense of the sacred amongst all people. For us its found in the TLM for others that may not be the case and that’s OK! BUT the rubrics must be followed and the abuses must stop and stop confusing the people. We are Catholic we our entire faith is showed to the world through OUTWARD signs (sacraments) why do we not expect the same thing and express ourselves the same way with outward signs to show our internal disposition? Instead we now just brush it off and say "well God only cares about what’s on the inside. If that is true then why does he give us the sacraments? An outward sign? It doesn’t make sense.

FYI I love this guy A LOT!

youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Indeed, and after the Latin was trashed, fasting and abstinence rules were relaxed, punishment due to sin was discounted, sin itself was downplayed, etc, Catholics were left with very little identification, except the name. It’s like over 1900 years of genius and wisdom and beauty of the Church suddenly went for nothing. Secularism took over and yet the progressives are still left with hunger, poverty, unhappiness, and depression, amidst all the other blights and corruption of the modern world.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Indeed, and after the Latin was trashed, fasting and abstinence rules were relaxed, punishment due to sin was discounted, sin itself was downplayed, etc, Catholics were left with very little identification, except the name. It’s like over 1900 years of genius and wisdom and beauty of the Church suddenly went for nothing. Secularism took over and yet the progressives are still left with hunger, poverty, unhappiness, and depression, amidst all the other blights and corruption of the modern world.

My pastor refuses to use the terms mortal and venial sins. :banghead:

 

[Oneofthewomen]

My pastor refuses to use the terms mortal and venial sins. :banghead:

I don’t see why that is necessarily a bad thing.
There is not list of “mortal” vs. “venial” sins and what may be a mortal sin for me, might not be for you.

Sin is sin, what makes it “mortal” or not is knowledge & culpability.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I don’t see why that is necessarily a bad thing.
There is not list of “mortal” vs. “venial” sins and what may be a mortal sin for me, might not be for you.

Sin is sin, what makes it “mortal” or not is knowledge & culpability.

A mortal sin is a mortal sin no matter the person sorry to tell you. that kind of thought that you put is dangerous.

 

[ProVobis]

My pastor refuses to use the terms mortal and venial sins. :banghead:

Not surprising. There seems to be this growing feeling that mortal sin, according to the
requirements and now mitigating circumstances, is an impossibility. Therefore no need for confession either.

 

[RyanBlack]

A mortal sin is a mortal sin no matter the person sorry to tell you. that kind of thought that you put is dangerous.

Well, grave matter is always grave matter, but an act of grave matter does not automatically mean that one is in a state of mortal sin.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Not surprising. There seems to be this growing feeling that mortal sin, according to the
requirements and now mitigating circumstances, is an impossibility. Therefore no need for confession either.

I bet this is at least a contributor to the lack of people going to confession. As you said the diminishing of the idea of sin and the distinction between the two forms.

“But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (than is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them…”

According to St. Paul, no matter how “born again,” “saved,” or whatever you think you are, if you commit these sins and you do not repent, you will not go to heaven. That is the essence of what “mortal sin” means.

Id say that’s a good enough reason to make the distinction don’t you?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

A mortal sin is a mortal sin no matter the person sorry to tell you. that kind of thought that you put is dangerous.

No, grave matter is grave matter. What makes a sin “mortal” is that is must meet the following the criteria-

1. It must be grave matter.
2. I must know that it is grave matter.
3. I must willingly choose to do it anyway.

So, as I said, what may be a mortal sin for me, may not be for someone else. There is no list of mortal vs. venial, no matter how much you wish there might be.

 

[RyanBlack]

I bet this is at least a contributor to the lack of people going to confession. As you said the diminishing of the idea of sin and the distinction between the two forms.

“But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (than is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them…”

According to St. Paul, no matter how “born again,” “saved,” or whatever you think you are, if you commit these sins and you do not repent, you will not go to heaven. That is the essence of what “mortal sin” means.

Id say that’s a good enough reason to make the distinction don’t you?

The Church, which is the authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture, teaches that for a person to be in a state of mortal sin, there must be three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Grave matter is always grave matter, but not every act of grave matter automatically results in a state of mortal sin. There’s nothing controversial or dangerous about this–it’s the teaching of the Church.

 

[eightydeuce82]

No, grave matter is grave matter. What makes a sin “mortal” is that is must meet the following the criteria-

1. It must be grave matter.
2. I must know that it is grave matter.
3. I must willingly choose to do it anyway.

So, as I said, what may be a mortal sin for me, may not be for someone else. There is no list of mortal vs. venial, no matter how much you wish there might be.

Actually there are plenty of lists. And becoming the interpreter of this aspect is dangerous

 

[eightydeuce82]

The Church, which is the authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture, teaches that for a person to be in a state of mortal sin, there must be three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Grave matter is always grave matter, but not every act of grave matter automatically results in a state of mortal sin. There’s nothing controversial or dangerous about this–it’s the teaching of the Church.

Well that must explain the lack of people at confession glad you proved my point!

 

[alphawoman]

The article contains this comment about the proliferation of females in lay roles assisting the Mass:
Article:

You could argue that the priesthood is still exclusively for men, and that’s true. But if you start distributing the priestly duties to laypeople, it doesn’t really matter if women can’t be priests. They can still do the priest’s job.

The bolded is false. No lay person–male, female, or hermaphrodite–can replicate the priest’s role. He possesses the ability to confer the sacraments uniquely through the grace of holy orders. The author is mistakenly conflating administrative and procedural duties with sacramental duties, the latter of which are solely the realm of the priest. Every accessory layperson to Mass in the world could be female, and her participation in no way would dilute the role of the priest, because those core duties of the priest cannot be delegated, except to another priest.

I think you’d really enjoy C.S. Lewis’ book “Screwtape Letters”. In the book, Lewis discusses the ways in which Satan attempts to distract us from the Mass to dilute our receptiveness to God. He lists parishioners’ objections to the aesthetic and cultural attributes of the Mass and other participants as ways in which we can be distracted from the substance of the Mass.

I’d argue this is what the author of the article is experiencing–He’s objecting to the Mass as he has experienced it locally (NB: my phrasing is both subjective from his viewpoint and idiosyncratic to his experience). The objections he raises are preference based on cultural and aesthetic dimensions. These attributes he is discussing IN NO WAY contribute to the value of the Mass! The value of the Mass is pre-ordained by God through the sacrifice of Jesus. Every Mass is infinitely valuable because Jesus is offered to God, irrespective of whether the men are in suits, the choir is off-key, the priest’s homily is meandering and vacuous, etc.

Yes, it is nice if the cosmetic tone of the Mass and lay participants are representative of the preferences of the parish, insofar as this can inspire the more superficial in the pews to be drawn into the substantive part of the Mass, but there is no inherent increase in goodness of the Mass from this being so. These things really don’t matter in substance at all.