TLM At the National Shrine

[preV2tradcath]

I was able to see it from the homily to the end. Have to thank Bishop Slattery for an excellent sermon. Fr. Z and especially Fr. Goodwin were great as commentators. The choirs did well. I was pleasantly surprised to see so many in the Basilica for such an event.

 

[Ockham]

Unfortunately I missed the sermon. Does anyone know if it is available on video or text?

 

[preV2tradcath]

Unfortunately I missed the sermon. Does anyone know if it is available on video or text?

Click here.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I would like to protest that Spiritus Sanctus doctored post #27 to make it look like I made a statement that I had not. Everyone may clearly see that the statement in question was made in post #17 by another member. I may need to report this to the moderator.

I was replying to archangel’s post. I in no way was reffering to you. I’m terribly sorry, I don’t know how that happened. Honestly.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

Let’s sum this up:

A Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite was celebrated publically and prominently in the Upper Church of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception for the first time in 45 years.

The rite was executed with such precision that the only “flaws” that have been pointed out by an insatiable picker of nits on this forum are an instance of laughing at the altar (which would have been invisible to anyone not watching by television, and so did not diminish the dignity of the Mass for those actually, rather than vicariously, participating in it), and that poster’s own confusion about the order of the procession.

The sermon was incredible. Bishop Slattery in the midst of such splendour delivered a sermon which spoke to the humble heart of Christian life, and in so doing he gave witness to both the world and non-traditional Catholics that our vestments and courtly liturgy are not corruptions, and are in fact a great good, inasmuch as they are offered entirely to God, to worship Him and to direct the minds of the faithful to His ineffable, immonstrable glory.

For those hours in that city, home to so much evil, every gesture, every word, every sound, every silence of 4 000 Catholics was patiently and carefully directed solely at the worship of God and specifically in thanksgiving for the wonderful blessings He has bestowed on His Church in the person of our Holy Father, an erudite theologian, a fine churchman, and a compelling ambassador for Christ in our modern world.

And a beautiful thing came to pass for the glory of God.

 

[Ockham]

From Father Z’s blog: wdtprs.com/blog/

"We have much to discuss – you and I …

… much to speak of on this glorious occasion when we gather together in the glare of the world’s scrutiny to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the ascension of Joseph Ratzinger to the throne of Peter.

We must come to understand how it is that suffering can reveal the mercy of God and make manifest among us the consoling presence of Jesus Christ, crucified and now risen from the dead.

We must speak of this mystery today, first of all because it is one of the great mysteries of revelation, spoken of in the New Testament and attested to by every saint in the Church’s long history, by the martyrs with their blood, by the confessors with their constancy, by the virgins with their purity and by the lay faithful of Christ’s body by their resolute courage under fire.

But we must also speak clearly of this mystery because of the enormous suffering which is all around us and which does so much to determine the culture of our modern age.

From the enormous suffering of His Holiness these past months to the suffering of the Church’s most recent martyrs in India and Africa, welling up from the suffering of the poor and the dispossessed and the undocumented, and gathering tears from the victims of abuse and neglect, from women who have been deceived into believing that abortion was a simple medical procedure and thus have lost part of their soul to the greed of the abortionist, and now flowing with the heartache of those who suffer from cancer, diabetes, AIDS, or the emotional diseases of our age, it is the sufferings of our people that defines the culture of our modern secular age.

This enormous suffering which can take on so many varied physical, mental, and emotional forms will reduce us to fear and trembling – if we do not remember that Christ – our Pasch – has been raised from the dead. Our pain and anguish could dehumanize us, for it has the power to close us in upon ourselves such that we would live always in chaos and confusion – if we do not remember that Christ – our hope – has been raised for our sakes. Jesus is our Pasch, our hope and our light.

He makes himself most present in the suffering of his people and this is the mystery of which we must speak today, for when we speak of His saving presence and proclaim His infinite love in the midst of our suffering, when we seek His light and refuse to surrender to the darkness, we receive that light which is the life of men; that light which, as Saint John reminds us in the prologue to his Gospel, can never be overcome by the darkness, no matter how thick, no matter how choking.

Our suffering is thus transformed by His presence. It no longer has the power to alienate or isolate us. Neither can it dehumanize us nor destroy us. Suffering, however long and terrible it may be, has only the power to reveal Christ among us, and He is the mercy and the forgiveness of God.

The mystery then, of which we speak, is the light that shines in the darkness, Christ Our Lord, Who reveals Himself most wondrously to those who suffer so that suffering and death can do nothing more than bring us to the mercy of the Father.

But the point which we must clarify is that Christ reveals Himself to those who suffer in Christ, to those who humbly accept their pain as a personal sharing in His Passion and who are thus obedient to Christ’s command that we take up our cross and follow Him. Suffering by itself is simply the promise that death will claim these mortal bodies of ours, but suffering in Christ is the promise that we will be raised with Christ, when our mortality will be remade in his immortality and all that in our lives which is broken because it is perishable and finite will be made imperishable and incorrupt.

{…}

 

[Ockham]

This is the meaning of Peter’s claim that he is a witness to the sufferings of Christ and thus one who has a share in the glory yet to be revealed. Once Peter grasped the overwhelming truth of this mystery, his life was changed. The world held nothing for Peter. For him, there was only Christ.

This is, as you know, quite a dramatic shift for the man who three times denied Our Lord, the man to whom Jesus said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Christ’s declaration to Peter that he would be the rock, the impregnable foundation, the mountain of Zion upon which the new Jerusalem would be constructed, follows in Matthew’s Gospel Saint Peter’s dramatic profession of faith, when the Lord asks the Twelve, “Who do people say that I am?” and Peter, impulsive as always, responds “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Only later – much later – would Peter come to understand the full implication of this first Profession of Faith. Peter would still have to learn that to follow Christ, to truly be His disciple, one must let go of everything which the world considers valuable and necessary, and become powerless. This is the mystery which confounds independent Peter. It is the mystery which still confounds us: to follow Christ, one must surrender everything and become obedient with the obedience of Christ, for no one gains access to the Kingdom of the Father, unless he enter through the humility and the obedience of Jesus.

Peter had no idea that eventually he would find himself fully accepting this obedience, joyfully accepting his share in the Passion and Death of Christ. But Peter loved Our Lord and love was the way by which Peter learned how to obey. “Lord, you know that I love thee,” Peter affirms three times with tears; and three times Christ commands him to tend to the flock that gathers at the foot of Calvary – and that is where we are now. [This Mass is the foot of Calvary but so is this modern world!]

Peter knew that Jesus was the true Shepherd, the one Master and the only teacher; the rest of us are learners and the lesson we must learn is obedience, obedience unto death. Nothing less than this, for only when we are willing to be obedient with the very obedience of Christ will we come to recognize Christ’s presence among us.

Obedience is thus the heart of the life of the disciple and the key to suffering in Christ and with Christ. This obedience, is must be said, is quite different from obedience the way it is spoken of and dismissed in the world.

For those in the world, obedience is a burden and an imposition. It is the way by which the powerful force the powerless to do obeisance. Simply juridical and always external, obedience is the bending that breaks, but a breaking which is still less painful than the punishment meted out for disobedience. Thus for those in the world obedience is a punishment which must be avoided; but for Christians, obedience is always personal, because it is centered on Christ. It is a surrender to Jesus Whom we love.

For those whose lives are centered in Christ, obedience is that movement which the heart makes when it leaps in joy having once discovered the truth.

Let us consider, then, that Christ has given us both the image of his obedience and the action by which we are made obedient.

The image of Christ’s obedience is His Sacred Heart. That Heart, exposed and wounded must give us pause, for man’s heart it generally hidden and secret. In the silence of his own heart, each of us discovers the truth of who we are, the truth of why we are silent when we should speak, or bothersome and quarrelsome when we should be silent. In our hidden recesses of the heart, we come to know the impulses behind our deeds and the reasons why we act so often as cowards and fools.

But while man’s heart is generally silent and secret, the Heart of the God-Man is fully visible and accessible. It too reveals the motives behind our Lord’s self-surrender. It was obedience to the Father’s will that mankind be reconciled and our many sins forgiven us. “Son though he was,” the Apostle reminds us, “Jesus learned obedience through what He sufferered.” Obedient unto death, death on a cross, Jesus asks his Father to forgive us that God might reveal the full depth of his mercy and love. “Father, forgive them,” he prayed, “for they know not what they do.”

Christ’s Sacred Heart is the image of the obedience which Christ showed by his sacrificial love on Calvary. The Sacrifice of Calvary is also for us the means by which we are made obedient and this is a point which you must never forget: at Mass, we offer ourselves to the Father in union with Christ, who offers Himself in perfect obedience to the Father. We make this offering in obedience to Christ who commanded us to “Do this in memory of me” and our obediential offering is perfected in the love with which the Father receives the gift of His Son.

Do not be surprised then that here at Mass, our bloodless offering of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary is a triple act of obedience. First, Christ is obedient to the Father, and offers Himself as a sacrifice of reconciliation. Secondly, we are obedient to Christ and offer ourselves to the Father with Jesus the Son; and thirdly, in sharing Christ’s obedience to the Father, we are made obedient to a new order of reality, in which love is supreme and life reigns eternal, in which suffering and death have been defeated by becoming for us the means by which Christ’s final victory, his future coming, is made manifest and real today.

…]

 

[Ockham]

Suffering then, yours, mine, the Pontiffs, is at the heart of personal holiness, because it is our sharing in the obedience of Jesus which reveals his glory. It is the means by which we are made witnesses of his suffering and sharers in the glory to come.

[NB] Do not be dismayed that there many in the Church have not yet grasped this point, and fewer still in the world will even consider it. You know this to be true and ten men who whisper the truth speak louder than a hundred million who lie. [OORAH!]

If then someone asks of what we spoke today, tell them we spoke of the truth. If someone asks why it is you came to this Mass, say that it was so that you could be obedient with Christ. If someone asks about the homily, tell them it was about a mystery and if someone asks what I said of the present situation, tell them only that we must – all of us – become saints through what we suffer."

Bishop Slattery

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is going out in this week’s Hot Topics eblast and I would like it to be a positive reflection of Traditional Catholicism. So please keep on topic and do not attack each other. Thanks.

 

[Lormar]

Let’s sum this up:

A Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite was celebrated publically and prominently in the Upper Church of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception for the first time in 45 years.

The rite was executed with such precision that the only “flaws” that have been pointed out by an insatiable picker of nits on this forum are an instance of laughing at the altar (which would have been invisible to anyone not watching by television, and so did not diminish the dignity of the Mass for those actually, rather than vicariously, participating in it), and that poster’s own confusion about the order of the procession.

The sermon was incredible. Bishop Slattery in the midst of such splendour delivered a sermon which spoke to the humble heart of Christian life, and in so doing he gave witness to both the world and non-traditional Catholics that our vestments and courtly liturgy are not corruptions, and are in fact a great good, inasmuch as they are offered entirely to God, to worship Him and to direct the minds of the faithful to His ineffable, immonstrable glory.

For those hours in that city, home to so much evil, every gesture, every word, every sound, every silence of 4 000 Catholics was patiently and carefully directed solely at the worship of God and specifically in thanksgiving for the wonderful blessings He has bestowed on His Church in the person of our Holy Father, an erudite theologian, a fine churchman, and a compelling ambassador for Christ in our modern world.

And a beautiful thing came to pass for the glory of God.

Humbled Catholic, what a beautiful user name! I, too, was humbled (Lord knows I can use it) by His Excellency’s incredibly beautiful and profound sermon. This is much food for meditation for me here.

As my late Franciscan spiritual director (God rest his faithful soul) used to always say to me: “There’s all the hope in the world!”

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States took a decisive and irrevocable step in the right direction on Saturday. Never will it be the same again.

Forward everyone!!

The times, they are a changin’!

 

[dmorgan]

I asked this question to see what the reactions of all posters were to the Extraordinary Form as given at this Mass. I found myself in tears as I watched the Mass and listened to Bishop Slatery’s Homily. I am hopefull that the attendance of the Mass and the responses that I have seen both on this forum and on others that I frequent will help further the cause of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and increase the EF offerings nation wide. Sometimes the answers for the present are found in the past.

 

[Crumpy]

I was an altar server for six or seven years before the Mass went into English. I never saw a Latin Mass that had so many choreographed gestures.

I can hardly think that anybody considers that reverent, when there is so much excessive formality to the Mass.

I have never personally seen a Latin Mass that carried on for two hours, for any reason,or for more than one hour except because of the number of communicants.

I can only imagine Mother Angelica someplace saying or thinking to herself “awesome!” as if pleasing her sensibility was more important than anybody else.

A “low” Mass might be over in 30 minutes, a Sunday Mass in an hour. And, these were beautiful, reverent Masses. I’m not the kind of person who sits there critically with a stopwatch, I’m just saying I am very familiar with the length of those Masses and, really, that’s about as much as anybody can sit around comfortably.

And, there was plenty of time for very dignified hymns to be sung at the Mass. In those days, Masses were rarely televised, and I never saw anything like what we’re seening today.

 

[Adeodatus]

I attend the TLM almost every Sunday at my local cathedral, and it seems to take about an hour and a half even when it’s a Low Mass. The priest goes pretty quickly, too. I don’t know what people are talking about with these high speed Masses.

And this Mass at the National Shrine was a Pontifical Mass, which is about as high as it gets. So of course there were lots of choreographed gestures.

Like I said, it’s liturgical spikenard. Let us pour it out upon the head of Our Savior. Let us revere Him with all care and dedication. It is a truly good thing.

 

[Ockham]

I was an altar server for six or seven years before the Mass went into English. I never saw a Latin Mass that had so many choreographed gestures.

I can hardly think that anybody considers that reverent, when there is so much excessive formality to the Mass.

I have never personally seen a Latin Mass that carried on for two hours, for any reason,or for more than one hour except because of the number of communicants.

You’ll find plenty of people here that consider that Mass reverent. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You can now return to your regularly scheduled informal Novus Ordo.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

Forward everyone!!

The times, they are a changin’!

I too enjoy usurping such phrases for the Lord’s purposes (and, perhaps, mine own)!

Workers of the Lord, Unite!

---

This post seems to sum up the whole of the objections to all Extraordinary Form liturgies (I’ve seen them levelled at most):

I was an altar server for six or seven years before the Mass went into English. I never saw a Latin Mass that had so many choreographed gestures.

I can hardly think that anybody considers that reverent, when there is so much excessive formality to the Mass.

The idea of formality is to ensure propriety, in the first. The priest is told to elevate his hands in prayer so that he doesn’t rub his hands together to warm up, or something like that. The more “formal” the Mass is, provided the rubrics are sound, the more carefully and prayerfully everything is done.

I don’t see how this is anything but reverent.

I have never personally seen a Latin Mass that carried on for two hours, for any reason,or for more than one hour except because of the number of communicants.

I can only imagine Mother Angelica someplace saying or thinking to herself “awesome!” as if pleasing her sensibility was more important than anybody else.

With all that extenuation of our immensely abbreviated Roman Rite, we didn’t come close to the average length of service in the primitive church, which was about 3-4 hours.

We just barely exceeded the average length of a properly executed Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the average Sunday liturgy in the Eastern Rites.

A “low” Mass might be over in 30 minutes, a Sunday Mass in an hour. And, these were beautiful, reverent Masses. I’m not the kind of person who sits there critically with a stopwatch, I’m just saying I am very familiar with the length of those Masses and, really, that’s about as much as anybody can sit around comfortably.

Except, as I say, our fathers in faith and our Eastern bretheren.

I’m not going to disagree with you: the comparative brevity of the Roman Rite and its simplicity (what is really meant by “simplicity”) are good things for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, the Church is not overstepping any bounds or violating any soundly-held sensibility of the faithful when for an occasion of such solemnity (“Where the bishop is, there is the Church” - St. Ignatius of Antioch) she demands of us some extra formality or patience.

The Church did not so frequently employ this Rite back in “the day”, either; most times, as I understand it, bishops would choose not to say Mass *as a bishop *(I think that’s the proper term), but rather as and with the rubrics prescribed for a priest, for efficiency’s sake.

This most splendid rite of the Church was reserved for public celebrations of the greatest solemnity. Such, for instance, as the solemn thanksgiving for five years of a wonderful Pontificate.

And, there was plenty of time for very dignified hymns to be sung at the Mass. In those days, Masses were rarely televised, and I never saw anything like what we’re seening today.

I’m certain it was dignified. The reverence of the more humble, normal liturgies of the Church is not in question. Nonetheless, that does not mean that there is not occasion when the Church should allow for more formality and splendour in worship.

It is a very rare thing to see indeed. I count me lucky to have done so. If only by television, nevertheless I am thankful for that means. (Is there anything more fitting to broadcast?)

 

[Marie5890]

I too enjoy usurping such phrases for the Lord’s purposes (and, perhaps, mine own)!

Workers of the Lord, Unite!

---

This post seems to sum up the whole of the objections to all Extraordinary Form liturgies (I’ve seen them levelled at most):

The idea of formality is to ensure propriety, in the first. The priest is told to elevate his hands in prayer so that he doesn’t rub his hands together to warm up, or something like that. The more “formal” the Mass is, provided the rubrics are sound, the more carefully and prayerfully everything is done.

I don’t see how this is anything but reverent.

With all that extenuation of our immensely abbreviated Roman Rite, we didn’t come close to the average length of service in the primitive church, which was about 3-4 hours.

We just barely exceeded the average length of a properly executed Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the average Sunday liturgy in the Eastern Rites.

Except, as I say, our fathers in faith and our Eastern bretheren.

I’m not going to disagree with you: the comparative brevity of the Roman Rite and its simplicity (what is really meant by “simplicity”) are good things for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, the Church is not overstepping any bounds or violating any soundly-held sensibility of the faithful when for an occasion of such solemnity (“Where the bishop is, there is the Church” - St. Ignatius of Antioch) she demands of us some extra formality or patience.

The Church did not so frequently employ this Rite back in “the day”, either; most times, as I understand it, bishops would choose not to say Mass *as a bishop *(I think that’s the proper term), but rather as and with the rubrics prescribed for a priest, for efficiency’s sake.

This most splendid rite of the Church was reserved for public celebrations of the greatest solemnity. Such, for instance, as the solemn thanksgiving for five years of a wonderful Pontificate.

I’m certain it was dignified. The reverence of the more humble, normal liturgies of the Church is not in question. Nonetheless, that does not mean that there is not occasion when the Church should allow for more formality and splendour in worship.

It is a very rare thing to see indeed. I count me lucky to have done so. If only by television, nevertheless I am thankful for that means. (Is there anything more fitting to broadcast?)

Very insightful and historical background, thanks for putting it out there.

I do agree with you that there certainly are times when Church should allow for the more formal and splendor in worship. Like I said in my first post it is something I could attend a few times a year on special occasions. (and this was for the Pope in honor of his 5th anniversary since his election which does make it very appropriate.)

(Although it wouldnt be appropriate to bring very small children…too long of a time to ask them to sit quietly and reverently for sure)

As it is now I do believe that EWTN shows an TLM Mass 3 or 4 times a year? I think that is the right way to go.

I do also believe, though, the the TLM should be more readily available to anyone who wants to attend. It’s obvious is a very meaningful and beautiful form of worship for many of you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You said the Mass bored you. That by extention means you weren’t entertained enough.

How dare you call into question what’s in my heart. Please take this passive aggresiveness somewhere else.

What is your agenda here?

Oh, for pity’s sake, everyone has the potential for a different reaction to any number of different events. I’ve known plenty of devout, orthodox Catholics who grew up with the EF AS the normative Mass, and who welcomed the changes, who said you never understood what was going on. Sound like the potential for boredom?

You have a reaction to the OF, you have to expect, in reason, that people are going to have a reaction to the EF (except for the fact, of course, that the phrase “in reason” has little practical application for many who label themselves “traditionalist”).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I was an altar server for six or seven years before the Mass went into English. I never saw a Latin Mass that had so many choreographed gestures.

I can hardly think that anybody considers that reverent, when there is so much excessive formality to the Mass.

That has been my reaction to televised EF Masses (not the one I attended at an SSPX chapel, only the televised ones): far too much exaggerated and choreographed gestures. The FSSP Mass televised on EWTN a year or so ago is an example, with the deacons/subdeacons picking the celebrants skirts up for him each time he lift his foot to mount a step. I thought that aspect very effeminate and off putting.

As a side note, for many of us, the OF is not “informal,” it is austere and noble. Is it abused? Yes. I do not, however, buy the argument that the EF is inherently abuse-proof or less capable of being abused.

 

[ProVobis]

Sound like the potential for boredom?

Like this, you mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=nHWuBBOTUjk

 

[JMJ_coder]

A “low” Mass might be over in 30 minutes, a Sunday Mass in an hour. And, these were beautiful, reverent Masses. I’m not the kind of person who sits there critically with a stopwatch, I’m just saying I am very familiar with the length of those Masses and, really, that’s about as much as anybody can sit around comfortably.

I want to address just this. I’m not referring directly to either the EF or the OF, but I find this a general problem in the current mindset of this culture.

You claim that an hour “is about as much as anybody can sit around comfortably”. O really?! How long does the average person sit watching sports, or a movie, or playing video games? Who would dare suggest that the Super Bowl should be cut down to an hour or less (and expect to escape unharmed)? How long does a devoted fisherman or hunter sit absolutely still and quiet on a boat or in a duck blind?

The true answer is that most people today don’t want to be at Mass. They view it as an obligation that must be done to go to heaven. They don’t have a love of God and for the Mass. Thus, they want their duty to be over with as quickly as possible so they can attend the things they do love (which apparently is not to be found in a Church). “For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.” (Mt 6:21; Lk 12:34)