Sad and Confused ...

[Robert_Burns]

Please be nice to me - I’m a college student and recent convert to the Church and I’m just trying to figure things out. I really, really don’t want this thread to turn into a fight.

To get to the point … I have attended OF Masses since I became interested in the Church and throughout my conversion process. I love the Mass, but as my spiritual life has deepened I have begun to be troubled by certain elements (i.e. the “sign of peace”, a - to me - distracting episode that for some reason has been placed at the pivotal moment after the consecration and before asking God for mercy) as well as some significant abuses that I have seen from a number of different priests lately, at different parishes - some of these abuses were extensive and appalling, and the laity just went along with everything. I go to daily Mass and these Masses are reverent but I have begun to actually dread Sunday Mass for various reasons.

Largely because of this, yesterday I went to the only local EF. It was a low Mass with a very elderly priest and almost no one there. It was beautiful … but I can’t even express how miserable I felt afterwards and still feel … taking part in the ancient rite only confirmed the painful growing feeling that the current OF was a real misstep for the Church. It is incomprehensible to me why the old rite was done away with so drastically. It was also painful to see how few people there were, and how much difficulty this priest has in being able to celebrate this Mass. And it’s perplexing to me to see so much hostility aimed against those who love this rite.

I have a strange feeling of mourning as if it has finally been brought home to me how much the Church that I have just joined, that I love, is struggling. I don’t know how to express it. I keep crying uncontrollably. I feel adrift as if I don’t know anymore how or where to anchor myself spiritually. When I pray I feel abandoned by God and I wonder if I have done something wrong.

Has anyone felt this way … and if so … how do you cope?

All of us who love the EF feel the same way. How do you cope? By knowing that GOD never fails those who persevere in his TRUTHS. I only attend the EF for some of the reasons you spoke about. Pray the Holy Rosary. Live the faith. There are obviously Heretics who have infilltrated Holy Mother the Church and you will no doubt come across some. People who think Women should be Priests or people who find nothing wrong with homosexuality people who divorce and remarry etc. Know this - Our Church teaches the same truths it has always taught. Pray and Learn as much as possible about your faith. You will spot these wolves in sheeps clothing and when you do you can avoid them. Now I know some may attack me for saying some of these things - But I dont care. I am Catholic. And GOD Willing I will be until the day I die. Thats how I cope. Welcome to the Church. It is easy to cope when you serve GOD not men. His yoke is sweet and his burden is light.

Pax

 

[Javl]

All of us who love the EF feel the same way. How do you cope? By knowing that GOD never fails those who persevere in his TRUTHS. I only attend the EF for some of the reasons you spoke about. Pray the Holy Rosary. Live the faith. There are obviously Heretics who have infilltrated Holy Mother the Church and you will no doubt come across some. People who think Women should be Priests or people who find nothing wrong with homosexuality people who divorce and remarry etc. Know this - Our Church teaches the same truths it has always taught. Pray and Learn as much as possible about your faith. You will spot these wolves in sheeps clothing and when you do you can avoid them. Now I know some may attack me for saying some of these things - But I dont care. I am Catholic. And GOD Willing I will be until the day I die. Thats how I cope. Welcome to the Church. It is easy to cope when you serve GOD not men. His yoke is sweet and his burden is light.

Pax

Well said.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Student09]

I have an update: I went to the EF again today. There were a LOT more people there! Ok, still only a fraction of a typical Sunday OF Mass, but there were around fifty people today instead of ten. Many of them appeared to be in their twenties, thirties and forties and there were a lot of young children. Not sure what was going on last week, but anyway, this was good to see.

Of course, I also appreciated the Mass more the second time. It really came home to me today, in a new way or maybe even for the first time, that the whole Mass is itself a prayer addressed to God. I’m also aware that I need to meditate more on what it means for the Mass to be a sacrifice.

I still feel saddened and perplexed about the situation the Church is in, but I want to thank everyone who’s posted on this thread so far; it really helps.

 

[ProVobis]

I have an update: I went to the EF again today. There were a LOT more people there! Ok, still only a fraction of a typical Sunday OF Mass, but there were around fifty people today instead of ten. Many of them appeared to be in their twenties, thirties and forties and there were a lot of young children. Not sure what was going on last week, but anyway, this was good to see.

Of course, I also appreciated the Mass more the second time. It really came home to me today, in a new way or maybe even for the first time, that the whole Mass is itself a prayer addressed to God. I’m also aware that I need to meditate more on what it means for the Mass to be a sacrifice.

Maybe your example and good attitude is paying off.

 

[Monica4316]

I found this article and I thought of your thread… I wanted to share it with you. I hope it helps! I know what you mean about being sad about the situation the Church is in but I really think the devil is attacking it… it’s being attacked in many ways, from within and without, but that’s because the enemy knows how powerful it is. God bless!!

"A friend of mine once remarked about a mutual priest-friend of ours that he had gone so far to the right that he was now on the left. Both extremes are often united in their assertion that the Second Vatican Council created a brand-new Church. The far left maintains happily that the Council or “the spirit” of the Council brought down any semblance of a hierarchical Church, leaving in its wake a new liturgy and the elimination of any serious transcendental dimension to Catholic worship. The far right agrees unhappily, pointing to the destruction of ecclesiastical discipline and citing liturgical horror stories.

I have said for years that the content of the conciliar documents may well rival the third secret of Fatima for speculation and inscrutability. The only way to uncover the genuine teachings of the Council is to highlight texts that show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, no traditional practice or doctrine is contradicted—on the contrary, tradition is reinforced in convincing ways. Allow me to serve as your tour guide through the real Second Vatican Council, taking the documents in order.

Sacrosanctum Concilium—The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

The liturgy is no doubt the most neuralgic area of post-conciliar life. It is here that we are treated to some of the most egregious examples of ecclesial mythology. One of the first myths foisted on the laity is that Vatican II taught that Christ is as present in the liturgical assembly as he is in the eucharistic species. Here’s what the Council Fathers really said:

“To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially under the eucharistic species” (SC 7, emphasis mine).

We are also led to believe that the Council did away with devotions. That flies in the face of the following: “Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See” (13).

Those who think that it’s cool to personalize the liturgy or that incessant change is the goal of liturgical life would be well advised to heed the Council’s words: “No other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. . . . Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (22, 23).

And, of course, we all know that the reforms of Vatican II did away with the Latin Mass. Strangely enough, nobody informed the bishops: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (36). And some priests will be amazed to learn that “in accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office” (101). It would seem that a real Vatican II Catholic ought to foster the use of Latin, eh?

And what kind of music should form the backbone of Catholic worship? The answer is quite direct: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (116).

 

[Monica4316]

Inter Mirifica—Decree on the Means of Social Communication

Conflicts have occurred between diocesan bishops and the editors of their newspapers over the nature of the Catholic press, with not a few journalists arguing for autonomy based on an alleged right to “freedom of the press.” These individuals seem to forget that the latter is concerned with freedom from governmental interference and not guidance from the publisher.

Snide remarks about Catholic media outlets being reduced to “house organs” notwithstanding, the Council certainly envisioned our commitment to establishing Catholic media as tools of evangelization:

“A good press should be fostered. To instill a fully Christian spirit into readers, a truly Catholic press should be set up and encouraged. Such a press—whether immediately fostered and directed by ecclesiastical authorities or by Catholic laymen—should be edited with the clear purpose of forming, supporting, and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts” (IM 14). No room here for a pluralism that leaves the faithful confused about the doctrines of the Church.

Lumen Gentium—Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

Catholics have been instructed by some theologians not to take too seriously the “institutional” Church, inasmuch as Vatican II did away with the Catholic hierarchical model. The conciliar bishops, in contrast, seem to provide a rather strenuous theological basis for a traditional ecclesiology:

“The society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word” (LG 8). So much for “we are Church” if that means independence from the Church’s divinely established order.

In recent years, the ordained priesthood has suffered a major identity crisis at the hands of those who assert that there is no real difference between priests and lay people. The Council Fathers thought otherwise, declaring that while “the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are . . . interrelated . . . they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree” (10, emphasis mine).

For 25 years now Pope John Paul II has been decrying the clericalization of the laity and the laicization of the clergy, a theme picked up by synods of bishops as well. His concern about priests running for public office and lay people administering sacraments, let alone the confused state of religious life, is grounded in the clear teaching of the Council:

“What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature. . . . By their state in life, religious give splendid and striking testimony that the world cannot be transformed and offered to God without the spirit of the beatitudes. But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven” (31).

Finally, we often hear about the legitimacy of so-called “loyal dissent,” especially when dealing with matters not defined absolutely. But the bishops of the Council did not envision such a possibility:

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, [and] the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (25, emphasis mine).

If it is true that the vast majority of our current problems in the Church are liturgical and ecclesiological, it should be clear to any objective reader that the root of those difficulties cannot be laid at the doorstep of the Council.

 

[Monica4316]

Unitatis Redintegratio—Decree on Ecumenism

We saw earlier that the bishops at Vatican II, in their Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, did not hesitate to give “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about who the Church is and how she sees herself. An equally forceful declaration finds its way into their Decree on Ecumenism:

“For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (UR 3).

Still, some would-be ecumenists encourage us to “just be nice.” In other words, don’t deal with any substantive issues, especially those that are theologically divisive. While the Council urged Catholics to present Catholic doctrine so that it is comprehensible to non-Catholics and in as palatable a manner as possible, it stressed that “it is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety” (emphasis mine). Then comes this outright condemnation of a less-than-forthright approach to ecumenical dialogue: “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded” (11).

Perfectae Caritatis—Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life

It is obvious even to outsiders that religious life has been in meltdown since the Council. Abandoning traditional apostolates, moving out of religious houses, eschewing authority systems, discarding identifiable garb—all these have contributed to this downward spiral. Leaders of this new vision of religious life regularly appeal to Vatican II for justification for their campaign.

Not a single item of such an agenda can find even a hint of support in the Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life; in fact, the document contains contrary teachings on all scores. Let us allow just one issue—the habit—to stand as an example of how far off their program is from what the bishops had in mind: “The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same time becoming” (PC 17).

Optatam Totius—Decree on the Training of Priests

As a post-conciliar seminarian (having entered just three years after the Council), I was stunned to find not a single course, class, homily, retreat, or day of recollection devoted to helping us live celibate chastity. Indeed, the only time celibacy was mentioned even indirectly was when one of our instructors informed us, “By the time you guys are ordained, you’ll be able to get married.”

Twenty-five years after my ordination, that prediction has not panned out, but we have certainly reaped the tragic harvest of non-education—even counter-education—in this sensitive area. What if the Council had been heeded? With feet planted firmly in reality, the bishops mandated:

“Students who follow the venerable tradition of celibacy according to the holy and fixed laws of their own rite are to be educated to this state with great care. For renouncing thereby the companionship of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 19:12), they embrace the Lord with an undivided love altogether befitting the new covenant, bear witness to the resurrection of the world to come (cf. Luke 20:36), and obtain a most suitable aid for the continual exercise of that perfect charity whereby they can become all things to all men in their priestly ministry. Let them deeply realize how gratefully that state ought to be received, not, indeed, only as commanded by ecclesiastical law, but as a precious gift of God for which they should humbly pray” (OT 10).

In yet another passage the Council Fathers’ realism comes across loud and clear: “They [seminarians] are to be warned of the dangers that threaten their chastity especially in present-day society. Aided by suitable safeguards, both divine and human, let them learn to integrate their renunciation of marriage in such a way that they may suffer in their lives and work not only no harm from celibacy but rather acquire a deeper mastery of soul and body and a fuller maturity, and more perfectly receive the blessedness spoken of in the Gospel” (10).

When seminaries eliminated rules of almost every kind—from mandatory daily Mass and divine office to bans on dating—they did so in opposition to conciliar directives like the following: “The discipline of seminary life is to be reckoned not only as a strong safeguard of community life and of charity but also as a necessary part of the total whole training formation. For thereby self-mastery is acquired, solid personal maturity is promoted, and the other dispositions of mind are developed which very greatly aid the ordered and fruitful activity of the Church” (11).

When a priest of the Latin rite can honestly say—as can most young priests today—that he never studied a word of Latin in the seminary, one is forced to ask what happened to this directive: “Moreover, they [future priests] are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church” (13). The document goes on to offer other equally challenging standards in the liberal arts and in the specifically philosophical and theological sciences.

 

[Monica4316]

Gravissimum Educationis—Declaration on Christian Education

Some Catholics argue that Catholic schools are a relic of “ghetto Catholicism,” while some parents maintain that they can legitimately homeschool their children when Catholic schools are available. Both camps bump up against an eminently clear and unnuanced norm: “The Council also reminds Catholic parents of the duty of entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible and of supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children” (GE 8).

Thus official Church teaching is a two-edged sword for those who think Catholic schools are passé as well as for those who suppose that parents as primary educators means only educators. The document also makes clear that the maintenance of Catholic schools is the responsibility of every Catholic and not merely that of parents who send their children to them.

Supporters of the concept of school vouchers should take heart in this strong conciliar statement: “Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools. Consequently, the public power, which has the obligation to protect and defend the rights of citizens, must see to it, in its concern for distributive justice, that public subsidies are paid out in such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children” (6).

Dei Verbum—Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation

It has been noted that the primary divide among Christians today is not between Protestant and Catholic but between those who believe in revealed religion and those who do not. That cleavage cuts across denominational lines so that there are those, Catholic in name, who act as if revelation is a work in progress (as distinct from John Cardinal Newman’s notion of development of doctrine). They hold for a kind of magisterium of academia.

Conversely, the Council holds out a tripartite model: “It is clear, therefore, that sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church [that is, the bishops in union with the pope], in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls” (DV 10).

Along with the above problem comes a hermeneutic of suspicion that what Scripture seems to teach it really doesn’t, especially if it flies in the face of “modern” concerns or positions. The Council Fathers took aim at this mentality, particularly when it undermines the historicity of the Gospels:

“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven (cf. Acts 1:1–2)” (19, emphasis mine). So much for silly and irresponsible theories that suggest, for example, that Jesus didn’t really multiply the loaves and fishes but simply encouraged the multitude to share what they had!

Apostolicam Actuositatem—Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People

Vatican II is often dubbed “the Council of the laity,” and with good reason. Its calls for lay involvement would have gladdened the heart of someone like Cardinal Newman who, when asked what he thought was the role of the laity in the Church, responded, “We’d look rather silly without them, wouldn’t we?” But just what did the Council have in mind?

First of all, it is important to get the terminology straight. Not once does a conciliar document refer to any work of the laity as a ministry. That word is reserved exclusively and pointedly for the tasks entrusted to the ordained. Lay activity is consistently spoken of as an apostolate.

“The Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate. No part of the structure of a living body is merely passive but has a share in the functions as well as life of the body: so too in the Body of Christ, which is the Church, ‘the whole body . . . in keeping with the proper activity of each part, derives its increase from its own internal development’ (Eph. 4:16)” (AA 2).

The laity exercise apostolates, not ministries. This point has been driven home by the synod on the laity and John Paul’s subsequent apostolic exhortation, Christifideles Laici. This is not being picayune, for words matter in life (for example, the difference between tenant and owner even though both indicate someone who inhabits a dwelling) and especially in theology. One need think only of the ruckus caused over homoousios and homoioousios at the Council of Nicea—literally one iota of a difference!

What fields of endeavor are apt for the lay apostolate? An exhausting but not exhaustive list is provided: “All those things which make up the temporal order, namely, the good things of life and the prosperity of the family, culture, economic matters, the arts and professions, the laws of the political community, international relations, and other matters of this kind, as well as their development and progress, not only aid in the attainment of man’s ultimate goal but also possess their own intrinsic value” (7). One is struck by the conspicuous absence here of liturgical and other “churchy” roles.

 

[Monica4316]

Dignitatis Humanae—Declaration on Religious Liberty

One of the most contentious documents for some “traditionalists” is the Decree on Religious Liberty. Yet in this decree one finds another clear statement about the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, as well as the necessity for all men to conform themselves to the truth about God. Thus, while “liberals” crow about the document’s (rightful) emphasis on the inviolability of conscience and “conservatives” decry what they see as the fostering of religious indifferentism, we find the following assertions, which sound an awful lot like the immemorial position of the Church on these matters:

“The Council professes its belief that God himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus he spoke to the apostles: ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you’ (Matt. 28:19–20). For their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it” (DH 1).

Nearly 35 years later, the Holy See deemed it necessary to repeat these truth claims in Dominus Iesus, which rankled many would-be ecumenists and those who had become de facto religious indifferentists.

Ad Gentes Divinitus—Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity

In grammar school, when we were taught to be “mission-minded,” it was taken as a given of Catholic life. That truth was powerfully reinforced at Vatican II: “The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature” (GD 2). That truth became so lost in post-conciliar revisionism that, 25 years later, Pope John Paul II had to devote an entire encyclical (Redemptoris Missio) to what had been previously considered a truism.

In the same way, the Council Fathers presented the constant teaching of the Church in regard to access to salvation: “Those men cannot be saved who, though aware that God through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it or to persevere in it” (7).

Its restatement 25 years later was considered an outrage by many inside and outside the Church. At the same time, the Council reminded all of the fact that conversion to Christ and his Church must always be a free and personal decision: “By means of this missionary activity God is fully glorified, provided that men fully and consciously accept his work of salvation, which he has accomplished in Christ” (7).

Stake Your Claim

I was in fourth grade when Pope John XXIII announced the calling of the Council. In fifth grade, Sister Regina Rose suggested we all keep a daily scrapbook of news items related to what she predicted would be a momentous event in the life of the Church. She was right—as the sisters usually were.

I kept to that project with great diligence. Regrettably, that scrapbook got lost in a family move, but the Council was indeed a moment of great grace for the Church and has always formed my vision of the Church and the priesthood.

It is nothing but diabolical that the teachings of this Council should be hijacked by “left” or by “right”—and it is high time for the record to be set straight. So, if you:

prefer a more extensive use of Latin in the sacred liturgy,

are upset by liturgical experiments or practices such as lay distribution of Holy Communion or Communion in the hand,

hold that God wants every human being to be a Catholic,

can’t understand why religious wear lay attire,

treasure the charism of priestly celibacy,

think our seminaries have been derailed,

find it difficult to comprehend the lack of support for Catholic schools,

accept the teaching authority of the pope and bishops in union with him,

accept the Gospel portraits of Jesus as real and historical,

prefer to see laity representing Christ in the world rather than in the sanctuary,

believe it is your responsibility to evangelize the world for Christ,

then rejoice, and stake your claim as a true disciple of the Second Vatican Council. And make sure to tell others who hold opposing positions to find another Church council to appeal to for their private projects and agendas.

---

---

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., is founding editor of The Catholic Answer magazine and the author of over 30 books and 500 articles.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You spend a LOT more time on your knees.

There are also full genuflections at phrases referring to the Incarnation - for instance, “Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: et homo factus est” during the creed (in the OF people are supposed to bow here though few do) and “Et Verbum caro factum est” (and the Word was made flesh" which occurs in the passage from the Gospel of John . The beginning of the Gospel of John is read in Latin at the end of the Mass, every time.)

It’s also much quieter. The laity speak not at all or very little (I understand this can vary somewhat). We said a few brief responses, for instance, during the Kyrie, but I noticed that because of the general mood and because the priest spoke quietly, the laity kind of murmured the responses softly. The atmosphere created by this was - at least for me - more prayerful. There were fewer distractions because the responses were few and quiet, and because the priest was facing the altar rather than the congregation.

It’s more penitential, too. In addition to all the kneeling and genuflections, and striking the breast three times, the Kyrie is longer, there are two Confeitors and the “Lord I am not worthy” is said three times before the people’s communion.

This sounds much more reverent, though the OF can be very reverent, too. What you describe is beautiful. No wonder Pope Benedict XVI loves this form so much and is working so hard to fix abuses and mistakes in the practice of the liturgy. You’ve given me an insight into a beautiful and precious treasure of the Church. I’m very, very grateful the Lord is preserving this.

The sound of Latin is beautiful. I could understand parts because I’ve been working on familiarity with the language and memorizing prayers in Latin. But, it was confusing trying to navigate the missal for the first time. I gave up about halfway through and just prayed and listened.

I agree – the sound of Latin is very beautiful.

I’ve still never used a missal. My brother has one, though, and he loves it. He tells me often how grateful he is to have the missal . He received it from Opus Dei, I think, during or directly after RCIA.

The Latin parts of the OF are beautiful. There is much that is so beautiful in the Mass, OF or EF, but from the way you describe the EF, it does really sound more reverent and beautiful. I’m glad the OF is available too, though, for those that really want to understand the language and those that would be overwhelmed by the EF being so very different from what they’re used to.

 

[Student09]

Monica, thank you for posting that article. It is reassuring. At the same time, it is addressed to people taking a very extreme position and does not really address the subtler questions and concerns that people may have.

For instance, a few things that leapt out at me reading Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”

• Who determines when a repetition is “useless”? Many or most Protestants think that the rosary consists of “useless repetitions.” We Catholics know better. So who determined that, for instance, having one Confiteor for the priest and another Confiteor for the laity was a “useless repetition” or that saying “Lord, I am not worthy …” three times before Communion is a useless repetition? What evidence did they have or give that these were useless?

As for being within “the people’s powers of comprehension” – which could encompass a wide range, since people are different and have different levels of comprehension – I would think that most things that are theologically and spiritually profound would require some explanation and perhaps much reflection and meditation.

“In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.”

• This is a striking statement. Now it makes me ask, what constitutes “full and active participation”? The only answer I could find in the document is this:

“To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes.”

• This seems to me problematic because external actions, if overdone, could actually distract from internal participation. Does external participation by means of frequent and sometimes lengthy spoken responses, for example, foster internal participation at its deepest level? Does it raise our hearts and minds and souls to God, to Jesus Christ actually present on the altar, better than reverent, prayerful silence? Indeed, is such raising of the mind and heart to God the purpose of active participation that the Council Fathers had in mind in this document? Or is this what they had in mind:

“It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.”

As a comment on this last statement, I find this quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand provocative and profound:

“Those who rhapsodize on the new liturgy make much of the point that over the years the mass had lost its communal character and had become an occasion for individualistic worship. The new vernacular mass, they insist, restores the sense of community by replacing private devotions with community participation. Yet they forget that there are different levels and kinds of communion with other persons. The level and nature of a community experience is determined by the theme of the communion, the name or cause in which men are gathered. The higher the good which the theme represents, and which binds men together, the more sublime and deeper is the communion. The ethos and nature of a community experience in the case of a great national emergency is obviously radically different from the community experience of a cocktail party. And of course the most striking differences in communities will be found between the community whose theme is supernatural and the one whose theme is merely natural. The actualization of men’s souls who are truly touched by Christ is the basis of a unique community, a sacred communion, one whose quality is incomparably more sublime than that of any natural community. The authentic we communion of the faithful, which the liturgy of Holy Thursday expresses so well in the words congregavit nos in unum Christi amor, is only possible as a fruit of the I-Thou communion with Christ Himself. Only a direct relation to the God-Man can actualize this sacred union among the faithful.

The depersonalizing “we experience” is a perverse theory of community.

The communion in Christ has nothing of the self-assertion found in natural communities. It breathes of the Redemption. It liberates men from all self- centeredness. Yet such a communion emphatically does not depersonalize the individual; far from dissolving the person into the cosmic, pantheistic swoon so often commended to us these days, it actualizes the person’s true self in a unique way. In the community of Christ the conflict between person and community that is present in all natural communities cannot exist.”

These are the sort of questions I am wrestling with. I would be very interested to hear the opinions of others, since I don’t trust my own opinions and would not want to hold up my personal preferences as truth. On the other hand, I have a personal preference for Gregorian chant, which this document also says has a special place in the liturgy, so I am not willing to simply dismiss all my instincts as delusional, especially when people like von Hildebrand make compelling arguments.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

• Who determines when a repetition is “useless”? Many or most Protestants think that the rosary consists of “useless repetitions.” We Catholics know better. So who determined that, for instance, having one Confiteor for the priest and another Confiteor for the laity was a “useless repetition” or that saying “Lord, I am not worthy …” three times before Communion is a useless repetition? What evidence did they have or give that these were useless?

The word “useless” was probably a poor choice of words.

Perhaps a large number of people performing these repetitions told the Vatican they weren’t spiritually gaining from them. Or perhaps some Church leaders took polls, or perhaps they had a commission that interviewed people and handed in a report. When it says, “useless,” it means, I believe, that many people do not spiritually gain from it, or feel they could gain more from something else. It doesn’t mean either that repetitive prayer in general is useless, or that this repetition is useless to everyone. Just that there are a lot of people they want to reach, who they don’t see this helping, so they want to try something else.

As for being within “the people’s powers of comprehension” – which could encompass a wide range, since people are different and have different levels of comprehension – I would think that most things that are theologically and spiritually profound would require some explanation and perhaps much reflection and meditation.

The average Catholic is not as knowledgeable about the faith as you are. As with the above point, I think they want to reach out to a lot of people. However, they also kept the High Mass in practice. They did not abolish it. Thus a substantial number of Catholics have a choice as to which kind of experience they want to engage in.

A while ago, I read the account of a Catholic here on CAF who was a Protestant and who said she really deeply appreciated the OF Mass. She said the EF Mass would have scared her off. However, the OF Mass could really reach her. Ecumenical outreach, as well as seeking the development of deeper spiritual understanding in laity that might feel really lost during the EF, are probably behind some of these reforms. However, as I mentioned, the Church did not abolish the EF. She wants both to be available.

• This seems to me problematic because external actions, if overdone, could actually distract from internal participation. Does external participation by means of frequent and sometimes lengthy spoken responses, for example, foster internal participation at its deepest level?

Probably not. I think you’re probably right about the EF being more conducive to this. The vast majority of the laity aren’t anywhere near that kind of spiritual maturity, though, and they also need spiritual food from the Word and liturgy that they can chew on. This again shows the wisdom of the Church in offering us both the OF and the EF, in my personal, though very ignorant, opinion (I haven’t thought about these matters much, I confess, and haven’t studied them at all).

Does it raise our hearts and minds and souls to God, to Jesus Christ actually present on the altar, better than reverent, prayerful silence? Indeed, is such raising of the mind and heart to God the purpose of active participation that the Council Fathers had in mind in this document? Or is this what they had in mind:

As a comment on this last statement, I find this quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand provocative and profound:

You know, it’s worth keeping in mind here that it’s all right to deal with these questions. This isn’t an issue of how genuine the sacrament is, but of how this experience can best be brought to the faithful. The Church can make mistakes in matters of discipline and form.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of differences between people. Many Catholics probably do experience God more joyfully and deeply in the OF than in the EF. They like to be able to understand the language, the teachings and prayers, and they relate to God in the active participation. Though I doubt that the OF is as conducive to the experience of the Prayer of Simplicity or infused contemplation as is the EF – I think you’re right on that. There are a lot of different people out there, a huge variety of Catholics in the world, and the Church wants to reach out to as many as possible, so she offers both the OF, to reach to the religious experience of some, and the EF to reach out to people like you. She does not condemn the EF, and if I’m not mistaken, Pope Benedict XVI is also a big supporter of the EF. The EF and OF both subsist in the Catholic Church, reaching largely to different groups of people, to try to help them where they are to come closer to where Christ is.

These are the sort of questions I am wrestling with. I would be very interested to hear the opinions of others, since I don’t trust my own opinions and would not want to hold up my personal preferences as truth.

Mine isn’t a very knowledgeable opinion, but I thought I’d offer it anyway .

On the other hand, I have a personal preference for Gregorian chant, which this document also says has a special place in the liturgy, so I am not willing to simply dismiss all my instincts as delusional, especially when people like von Hildebrand make compelling arguments.

It is fully permissible to have reservations about the OF, and to feel its form is less conducive to devotion than is the EF.

 

[floresco]

These are the sort of questions I am wrestling with. I would be very interested to hear the opinions of others, since I don’t trust my own opinions and would not want to hold up my personal preferences as truth. On the other hand, I have a personal preference for Gregorian chant, which this document also says has a special place in the liturgy, so I am not willing to simply dismiss all my instincts as delusional, especially when people like von Hildebrand make compelling arguments.

From what I have seen, your instincts are right on.

 

[Student09]

A while ago, I read the account of a Catholic here on CAF who was a Protestant and who said she really deeply appreciated the OF Mass. She said the EF Mass would have scared her off. However, the OF Mass could really reach her. Ecumenical outreach, as well as seeking the development of deeper spiritual understanding in laity that might feel really lost during the EF, are probably behind some of these reforms. However, as I mentioned, the Church did not abolish the EF. She wants both to be available.

As always, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It’s always good to get insight from others and just another point of view.

The comment quoted above raised this question for me - would this poster have been scared off by the OF Mass if the first OF Mass she had seen had been:
-partly in Latin
-used Gregorian chant
-ad orientem (priest facing altar)
?

The first two are actually called for and encouraged in Sacrosanctum Concilium. The third, the position of the priest, is an option in the OF (as I learned a couple days ago, to my surprise) and S.C. says nothing about turning the priest around to face the people. Obviously I have no idea if the answer to the question would be yes or no, but I suspect that an OF Mass at its most reverent and traditional would feel alien to many evangelical Protestants.

On another note, when I began attending Mass, I was disturbed and turned off by the terrible music, the jocular attitude of the priest(s) even during the Mass, the touchy-feeliness, and lack of reverence of some members. The music in particular distressed me. If I had not been already convinced by Catholic theology, and if I had not been so strongly drawn to the Real Presence in the Eucharist at Mass, I would not have continued to attend Mass and would not have converted; the form of the Mass was an obstacle to my conversion rather than a help. My mother, an atheist, has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the Catholic Masses she has been to; in her mind, they are not beautiful and reverent like the Anglican services she remembers from her childhood. One of these days I will drag her to an EF and I’m sure that she will like that better.

My point is, the EF Mass may be alienating to some, but the OF Mass - especially the way it is usually celebrated in the US, which I realize is not inherent in the form - is alienating to others. Ultimately, every conversion has its difficulties and none can succeed without the grace of God.

Most importantly, the form of the Mass should be about God and if it is truly about God, and the atmosphere is sacred and reverent, it will draw those who are seeking Him, even though it may make them uncomfortable. Actually, maybe sacredness should inspire a certain discomfort in us at the beginning of the spiritual journey; it should humble us. If we are really seeking God, this discomfort will not be an obstacle but a means by which we advance.

You know, it’s worth keeping in mind here that it’s all right to deal with these questions. This isn’t an issue of how genuine the sacrament is, but of how this experience can best be brought to the faithful. The Church can make mistakes in matters of discipline and form.

Yes. And I want to emphasize that I am not questioning the validity of the OF Mass, which I attend every day, nor am I disputing the authority of the Council, and I don’t want to exaggerate the reservations I have about a few passages in the documents I’ve read. The intentions and meaning of the Council document have been so distorted that it can be difficult to sort out what the Council Fathers actually intended from the warped interpretations that followed and that we see all around us, unfortunately.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of differences between people. Many Catholics probably do experience God more joyfully and deeply in the OF than in the EF. They like to be able to understand the language, the teachings and prayers, and they relate to God in the active participation. Though I doubt that the OF is as conducive to the experience of the Prayer of Simplicity or infused contemplation as is the EF – I think you’re right on that. .

Hey, infused contemplation is for everyone! You’re not elitist are you? (I’m joking.) But really, it is for everyone, regardless of differences.

You have mentioned a few times the lack of spiritual maturity and advancement of many Catholics. But part of the role of the Mass is to nourish this spiritual advancement in us. If it appears that many Catholics are spiritually immature, maybe it is because they are spiritually malnourished. (Although it is primarily a consequence of us not seeking holiness as ardently as we should - a problem in every age.)

Well, anyway, some thoughts. I seem to have a lot of them lately. Sorry for all the verbosity!

 

[floresco]

You have mentioned a few times the lack of spiritual maturity and advancement of many Catholics. But part of the role of the Mass is to nourish this spiritual advancement in us. If it appears that many Catholics are spiritually immature, maybe it is because they are spiritually malnourished. (Although it is primarily a consequence of us not seeking holiness as ardently as we should - a problem in every age.)

Well, anyway, some thoughts. I seem to have a lot of them lately. Sorry for all the verbosity!

Personally, I have been enjopying reading your thoughts very much. I have a friend who is both and Catholic and a teacher. He compares the principles seemingly guiding the implementation of the new Mass to the “dumbing down” of education. In both cases there is an attempt to make things easier and more accessible with questionable results.

 

[Student09]

Personally, I have been enjopying reading your thoughts very much. I have a friend who is both and Catholic and a teacher. He compares the principles seemingly guiding the implementation of the new Mass to the “dumbing down” of education. In both cases there is an attempt to make things easier and more accessible with questionable results.

I thought of that comparison too, actually. I do believe that if you raise the bar, spiritually or intellectually or in other areas of life, people will rise to meet it. Of course, the sooner this happens, the better … since we form habits early in life and once they are formed they are harder to change.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I thought of that comparison too, actually. I do believe that if you raise the bar, spiritually or intellectually or in other areas of life, people will rise to meet it. Of course, the sooner this happens, the better … since we form habits early in life and once they are formed they are harder to change.

I thought of that analogy too, actually. Still, I know that some people have been able to sink into Catholicism better through the OF . . . For that reason, I think the Vatican Fathers may have acted wisely by offering both. And I agree with you that strongly traditional expressions of the OF could capture much of what the EF does, and turn off evangelical Protestants.

The comment quoted above raised this question for me - would this poster have been scared off by the OF Mass if the first OF Mass she had seen had been:
-partly in Latin
-used Gregorian chant
-ad orientem (priest facing altar)
?

I know she mentioned that the fact that the EF is all in Latin would have been a serious turn off to her. I don’t know what she would have thought of a partially Latin service. I suppose maybe it would depend on how much was Latin? I don’t know.

Obviously I have no idea if the answer to the question would be yes or no, but I suspect that an OF Mass at its most reverent and traditional would feel alien to many evangelical Protestants.

That’s probably true.

A scripture passage comes to mind that I think may relate to this. 1 Cor. 9:19-23, “19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

Paul was willing to become whatever is necessary to try to draw people home to the Catholic Church. Vatican II was a very ecumenically minded council. It was seeking to reach out to as many people as possible, both in the Catholic laity and outside the Catholic fold, in the interests of Christian unity. By offering more than one form of the Mass, the Church, I think, may have been following in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul, just as it followed in his footsteps by establishing the Anglican Ordinariates to try to reach out to the Anglicans. The Church “has become all things to all men so that by all possible means she might save some.” I just suspect that that is the case.

My point is, the EF Mass may be alienating to some, but the OF Mass - especially the way it is usually celebrated in the US, which I realize is not inherent in the form - is alienating to others.

I agree with you, and I think this is why the Church offers both.

Most importantly, the form of the Mass should be about God and if it is truly about God, and the atmosphere is sacred and reverent, it will draw those who are seeking Him, even though it may make them uncomfortable.

That . . . is not necessarily true.

1 Corinthians 8 talks about how some brothers, true followers of Christ, can be put off by genuine Christian action and can even have their faith destroyed. Paul talks about how what people are “used to” can be a barrier to their receiving good things from God, even if Christ is really living in them.

Paul finds it necessary to adopt all kinds of different forms to reach different people, rather than simply asserting, “the truth speaks for itself,” and expecting everyone to get on board with one way of presenting the truth. He offers the true and sacred in many different ways to reach to different people. This is part of the evangelistic process.

Actually, maybe sacredness should inspire a certain discomfort in us at the beginning of the spiritual journey; it should humble us. If we are really seeking God, this discomfort will not be an obstacle but a means by which we advance.

In Hebrews 5, Paul also talks about how some people aren’t ready for solid food but only for milk. Now, when I say this, I’m not saying that people in the OF are only ready for milk. I’m just saying that some people who aren’t deep in the Catholic faith are turned off by things they presently can’t understand or appreciate. For instance, that Protestant-turned-Catholic I mentioned before, who was drawn to the OF, said that if the church had been full of statues of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she would have been turned off. She was genuinely seeking God, as is proven by the fact that she did convert to Catholicism and is a devout believer. She says that now she loves all those statues, but for her when she was Protestant, these would have turned her away. The way in which the truth is presented matters.

When talking with my Protestant family about Catholicism, I have “eased my way” in, not presenting hard truths first but working my way up to them through easier things, and things which are the most clearly Biblically supported. Having stomached and begun to digest the easier truths has made it easier for my sister to open up to those truths that are really difficult for her.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The intentions and meaning of the Council document have been so distorted that it can be difficult to sort out what the Council Fathers actually intended from the warped interpretations that followed and that we see all around us, unfortunately.

True.

Hey, infused contemplation is for everyone! You’re not elitist are you? (I’m joking.) But really, it is for everyone, regardless of differences.

Yes, I suspect you’re right . I just have been in touch with a variety of religious orders lately and some of them don’t use the Carmelite understanding of prayer at all. For instance, I talked with some very excellent and orthodox Catholics who use the Ignatian Exercises, and as I discussed it with them, I looked for parallels between it and the Carmelite beliefs about silence and infused contemplation. Their concept of contemplation was very different, though, more like imaginative meditation. They don’t seek infused contemplation at all, as far as I can see. Yet they gain great spiritual light through their path toward God.

There is a lot that I don’t understand!

You have mentioned a few times the lack of spiritual maturity and advancement of many Catholics. But part of the role of the Mass is to nourish this spiritual advancement in us. If it appears that many Catholics are spiritually immature, maybe it is because they are spiritually malnourished. (Although it is primarily a consequence of us not seeking holiness as ardently as we should - a problem in every age.)

Well, anyway, some thoughts. I seem to have a lot of them lately. Sorry for all the verbosity!

Being able to understand the language of the Mass might contribute a lot to the spiritual nourishment of some. Also participating through actions, words and song in the way of the OF might contribute to the spiritual nourishment of many. I personally have felt that the Lord was speaking to me at a number of times through the hymns or other aspects of the OF.

I agree with you that spiritual malnourishment is a serious problem for many Catholics. I think this is largely a result of many priests failing to give real Catholic doctrine to them, combined with the waves of secularism and liberalism that engulf the world today. Abuses of the Mass at various places also, I expect, contribute to the problem, as you have noticed.

 

[philipmarie]

In the Queen of heaven and earth,

I’m sorry but, what do you mean by ‘OF’ and ‘EF’ masses? What do they stand for? Is one a Novus Ordo mass? Is the other a Traditional Latin Mass? What the diffirences between them?

 

[Monica4316]

Monica, thank you for posting that article. It is reassuring. At the same time, it is addressed to people taking a very extreme position and does not really address the subtler questions and concerns that people may have.

For instance, a few things that leapt out at me reading Sacrosanctum Concilium:

• Who determines when a repetition is “useless”? Many or most Protestants think that the rosary consists of “useless repetitions.” We Catholics know better. So who determined that, for instance, having one Confiteor for the priest and another Confiteor for the laity was a “useless repetition” or that saying “Lord, I am not worthy …” three times before Communion is a useless repetition? What evidence did they have or give that these were useless?

As for being within “the people’s powers of comprehension” – which could encompass a wide range, since people are different and have different levels of comprehension – I would think that most things that are theologically and spiritually profound would require some explanation and perhaps much reflection and meditation.

• This is a striking statement. Now it makes me ask, what constitutes “full and active participation”? The only answer I could find in the document is this:
• This seems to me problematic because external actions, if overdone, could actually distract from internal participation. Does external participation by means of frequent and sometimes lengthy spoken responses, for example, foster internal participation at its deepest level? Does it raise our hearts and minds and souls to God, to Jesus Christ actually present on the altar, better than reverent, prayerful silence? Indeed, is such raising of the mind and heart to God the purpose of active participation that the Council Fathers had in mind in this document? Or is this what they had in mind:

As a comment on this last statement, I find this quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand provocative and profound:

These are the sort of questions I am wrestling with. I would be very interested to hear the opinions of others, since I don’t trust my own opinions and would not want to hold up my personal preferences as truth. On the other hand, I have a personal preference for Gregorian chant, which this document also says has a special place in the liturgy, so I am not willing to simply dismiss all my instincts as delusional, especially when people like von Hildebrand make compelling arguments.

Student, I see what you mean… I personally like the ‘quiet’ and prayerful participation of the laity in the EF, where we mostly assist the priest through our prayers… I’m not entirely sure about the original ideas/motives of VII, because I havent read all the documents, but what reassures me is reading Pope Benedict’s views on the liturgy… I think he has a pretty well balanced approach, and if parishes followed this more closely, we would have a good reverent liturgy that is also faithful to VII. Also I’m glad that the Pope isn’t against the EF - quite the opposite. I’m sorry I’m not sure how to answer the question about VII… perhaps someone here knows… but I do agree with you! I think our best option right now is simply to find a good parish, because in many ways it does depend on the priest and the parish. Maybe that’s the weakness of VII… it gave more freedom to the priests and bishops - which is not bad in itself but we can see how people have it to further their own (liberal) agendas. God bless