Too feminine; too masculine? We can only know that by looking at the Ordinary Form and the Tridentine or Extraordinary Form of the Mass and gender roles from the 1950's until today as what men should exude.
My undergraduate degree is in sociology and therefore I understand that gender roles are very much decided by society and culture and differ from culture to culture. In traditional Italian culture one would think nothing of two women walking down the street arm in arm--there was nothing overtly sexual about it. The same is true of two men kissing each other on each side of the face when greeting another man they know well.
In the USA in the 1950's and 60's masculine roles were identified with being warrior-like, protector, fighter, provider, stoic, strong, and introverted or meditative. Female roles were softer, open, community oriented, mother, housewife,all of which indicated they were the "weaker" sex.
The Tridentine/Extraordinary Mass has military characteristics to it, precision, regimentation, no room for creativity, and it is definitely not oriented toward the extroverted man or his personality. It is not about the male exuding warmth and hospitality, loving and caring attitude by his demeanor which are traditionally viewed as female qualities.
The Tridentine Mass inspires males who are not into the touchy-feely, smiley, empathetic, or creative, free wheeling forms of personality. The Ordinary Form of the Mass does attract men who like the above. In fact I would say part of the difficulty with the Ordinary Form Mass is that we've got to cajole men who aren't necessarily warm, empathetic, all embracing types to be that way at Mass. Reserved, quiet strength is now perceived as a weakness, aloof and narrow and not conducive to the warm, nurturing and empathetic forms of ministry many perceive the priest should exude today.
Several years ago I heard Monsignor Stephen Rossetti, who a well known priest-psychologist and has treated priests for serious pathologies, state that he thought the modern Mass made women (and some men) more attracted to person of the priest himself and not always in healthy ways, because the priest comes across in the Ordinary Form of the Mass as "available,open, warm,empathetic,and nurturing" and sometimes unlike most of the men women know, especially their husbands. As well the large arm gestures at the greetings and at other times says symbolically, "Here I am, come and get me! I'm available." Women (and some men) love that in a man. This has had devastating results for not a few men called to celibacy and the priesthood.
Boys use to like playing soldier, watching parades and things regimented. They liked boys clubs, which altar boys once were. Today, feminists would deride all of that especially the priesthood as a boy's club. But somehow the manliness of the Tridentine Mass (even with elaborate vestments and lace albs, which I know is a paradox) pointed to quiet, reserved strength and pointed to beautiful, heavenly mysteries and not to the person of the priest or his personality which were always downplayed.
The reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but in continuity with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass must look at healthy male psychology and what attracts men to the priesthood and liturgical rites of the Church.
22 comments:
If the Ordinary Form is too feminine, it is only so because it is somewhat childish.
The gravity and seriousness of the EF prayers just don't come across in the OF, no matter how solemnly or reverently it is offered. The focus of completely offering ourselves to God is somehow lost as we shift our focus to each other and the sense of community. The entire tone of the Ordinary Form is more relaxed. It also seems to embrace a Protestantized ideal of "celebrating" that we are all saved, presuming our salvation is a done deal. I believe this results in too many Catholics drifting into a distorted sense of God's mercy, assuming it is always there for the taking, while downplaying or ignoring the counterbalance of God's justice, which should make everyone tremble.
It is no surprise that this Protestant effect is present in the Ordinary Form, since it is a verifiable fact the Consilium, the official committee that composed the New Mass, included 6 Protestants.
It could be argued that Jesus said we must accept the Kingdom of God like a child or we cannot enter Heaven. However, Jesus was referring to our faith and our trust in him. He was telling us to be childlike, not childish, which is later confirmed by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians: "When I became a man, I put away childish things."
It is this very childishness that I believe appeals to women more than men. Women, being more maternal in nature, are more prone to accept a form of worship that is greatly simplified. But it is this very oversimplification that is both pandering and condescending.
I think the New Mass is also more appealing to senior citizens. Age makes us tired. It is so easy to almost cruise through the Ordinary Form when in attendance. The Extraordinary Form's rigor requires more attention and a more intensive concentration on prayer. This may explain why the aged members of the Church seem to be more entrenched in their opposition to the EF than any other group.
My conclusion is that the Ordinary Form is more suitable for women, children and the aged. However, we are not called to give in to our weaknesses, but persevere and call upon God for His strength.
Anonymous, bravo for that post. Excellent! The fact that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary is completely lost in the OF, whereas it is completely realized and presented in the EF.
I think we could argue that the EF works better for childlike faith, though. It more clearly presents the Mass as exactly what it is. Whereas, in the OF, one must undertake great study to recognize it for what it is! Moreover, there is no "memorization" to be done to attend and pray at the EF, whereas one must memorize phrases and words to "participate" in the OF. So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to concede that the OF is more easily understood or more open to participation as there is quite a compelling argument to be made that the OF is a stumbling block both for the childlike and the "manly" in faith.
At 63, I suppose I am a senior citizen, and I find that more often than not, the OF sets my teeth on edge. It is hard to overlook when the priest strays from the text in my new Missal. It is beyond difficult to stomach the travesty which passes these days for liturgical music.
I grew up with the EF, and remember unhappily and with pain when from us it was taken, just as Macduff from his mother's womb: untimely ripp'd.
Interesting observations. I do think them a bit generic, though. I am one of those artsy, creative, and empathetic males, and I find most NO celebrations grating. Not because of the "creativity" per se, but because of the aesthetic choices made. In other words, creativity can create garbage as well as art (not to say that The NO is essentially/inherently garbage, but certainly some elements of it, such as the hymnody, can be).
As an artsy, creative person, I can categorically state that I'll take Palestrina over Haugen any day. :-)
Mr. Meyer, in my first comment I, in no way, meant to say that all senior citizens (which I will soon be myself) prefer the Novus Ordo/New Mass/Ordinary Form. I did not mean to insult you. I just observe that, generally, they tend to be, as a group, the one "block" of the Church most opposed to returning to Tradition.
Anonymous, you're mostly correct except for one thing -- your claim that Protestants helped composed the New Mass is completely false; however, if you repeat a lie enough times, people will start to believe it. Yes, there were Protestants present, but ONLY as observers. On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: "The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal." (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).
Speaking as a female, I find the EF clearly demonstrates the priest acting in persona Christi, a masculine role defined by our Lord Jesus Christ. If this inspires men to be real men in the sense that God created them through his divinely inspired natural law, then Amen.
We suffer from gender confusion these days, a fallout from the feminist movement, where women want to be men and vice versa. When will we realize that God created them, male and female, and our happiness lies in our unique, distinctive roles? I find it puzzling that I am chided for covering my head during Mass and before the Blessed Sacrament. The criticism always comes from women.
As a former Protestant, I know too well the dangers of the "cult of personality" and the warm, approachable minefield of the minister. It is not so much a feminine characteristic of the OF that contributes to a lack of respect, but the "camp revival,"---a Protestant term--- aspect of it. Somehow, I cannot imagine one wearing shorts and flip flops to an EFM.
I have been searching for Calvary all my life, and in the EF, I find myself humbled and broken at the foot of the Cross. As C.S. Lewis said in The Weight of Glory, "You and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness." In the EF, I am transported out of this world of sin, and at the same time, my own transgressions become painfully clear. In awe, I am blessed with a glimpse of heavenly sacrifice and glory.
Anonymous, I was not insulted, nor was I offended. But generalities are fraught with peril. ;)
My parish is inhabited by dozens of seniors of the type you described.
Anonymous, I also liked you initial post, and do completely concur with your generalities. However, I can understand how you might feel that way because many of the flower children (i.e. Godspell) are now grey haired elders with deceptively conventional appearances. The same for women who are salient because they are clamouring for attention and access to the altar. These people can be misunderstood to represent a group, and they usually encourage that misunderstanding, when they do not.
Likewise, the child-like acceptance Christ recommended was probably the well behaved child in learning mode, not an obnoxious yuppie larvae screaming along with the television.
rcg
In one word, yes.
The OF is too feminine. In the OF the priest is one of the crowd, and we are all gathered together for a friendly chat. If the priest is well formed, you go home spiritually nurished, but the journey aspect is missing.
In the EF, we are on a spiritual journey. We are led by our local shepherd, toward our High Shepherd and our Heavenly Home.
Not all of us will make it. Many are called, but few are chosen. We compare ourselves to the standard that Christ and His Blessed Mother set for us- and we find ourselves sorrowfully lacking and beg God for pardon, and for the graces neccessary to overcome our faults.
In the OF, we tend to compare ourselves to those around us. We tend to think, 'sure, I have faults; but it's not like I'm a murderer or something.' It's not what the Church teaches, but Church Teaching gets lost in the 'I'm okay, you're okay' relaxed atmosphere of the OF.
In the OF we feel as though we are of the world, and we gather together once a week for a celebration. In the EF, we feel like pilgrims on a journey, in the world, but not of the world, with the priest as our strong shepherd leading us on the right paths to guide us to our True Home.
And as to beautiful garments and lace albs- it is only fitting that the priest be properly garbed to meet with his Creator. The stongest beings depicted in art are the angels, and beautiful robes and lace do not detract from their obvious might. I'd go so far to say that it actually visually enhances their obvious strength.
I could not agree more.
This is compounded with the forced "Peace" which is optional and the music.
What man wants to stand and sing On Eagle's Wings? Actually, if you read the song, there are no eagles there!
FOR THE RECORD, regarding the "lie" that Protestant Observers did not participate or influence the Consilium:
Bishop W. W. Baum (now Cardinal Baum), made the following statement in a personal interview with the Detroit News, June 27, 1967:
"They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn't mean much if they just listened, but they contributed."
Archdeacon Pawley, an Anglican Observer, said:
"In the course of the Council itself the fullest courtesies and opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to the Observers at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognized in the documents themselves."
Robert McMee Brown, a Presbyterian Observer, said:
"Particularly during the discussion on ecumenism, it was apparent that many bishops wanted to know what Protestant reactions were to statements in the schema about Protestantism, and wanted to elicit Protestant opinions on how the schema could be improved. Thus, although we had no direct 'voice' on the Council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong right arms, the periti."
rcg, I watched Godspell, enjoyed it as entertainment, and even had a friend who was in the Toronto cast for a long run. But I see no place for it in my Church, not even in the parish hall.
It seems to me that my parish is much too inward-facing, as is consistent with the sense of the OF celebrated versus populum.
I also think we would be far better off without a full-time liturgist (ours happens to be a woman), and without the long-time members of the RelEd dept. who see themselves as wiser and more knowledgeable than their pastor.
Joe, for those with any doubts, the excellent The Rhine flows into the Tiber, by Ralph Wiltgen (a priest who was at the Council) should be an eye opener.
On the one hand, there's no doubting the manliness of the role of the TLM priest. That's surely part of the reason why the typical small TLM community, perhaps with a Sunday attendance no more than a hundred, may produce more vocations than a mainstream parish of a thousand or two. Thus my own small TLM community, with two of our first few altar boys already in seminaries, two more of our young men headed to seminary in the next year or two, and several more good prospects among our boys not yet college-age.
On the other hand, is it that the Novus Ordo as constructed is inherently feminine, or is it that a couple of generations of "girlie men" have made it so in ordinary parish practice? Is it inevitable that the OF look more like a meal served by women than a sacrifice offered by men?
I wonder what percentage of the liturgists out there are women....
It also annoys me that in my parish, the only response used at the Mystery of Faith is (b) "when we eat this bread and drink this cup...". Always, the focus on the image of a meal, not a sacrifice.
They did not need Protestants at VatII. The Council protestantized just fine without any prot help. I was in seminary and grad school in theology during the 70's and prots were turning flips and oooo-ing and ahhh-ing over COCU, Vat II, and other ecumenical nonsense. I hated it then as a prot, and I hate it now as a Catholic.
Joe Shlabotnick, your quotes say nothing about the composition of the New Mass and whether or not Protestants actually participated in it. All your quotes refer to is the Council itself.
Too feminine? Well, it is kinda' chatty...and everybody starts hugging and smiling and waving during that ridiculous sign of peace...and then they like to hold hands during the Our Father...and then there are those Haugen songs like those that a woman might hear on the radio in the kitchen while she is ironing...and people walk down and have a "goodie" placed in their hand like a mom rewarding a small child...and their are all those nice EMHC's in their different outfits with their little scarves to talk to and smile at...and all those cute little girls in white running around the sanctuary...and the Priest is looking out over the congregation all smiling and sweet...too feminine...nah...
If you to to
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/v2-bombs13.htm
the quotes I've attributed are found here and they refer to the Consilium, not the Second Vatican Council.
As far as the statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship: I don't think that is a Magisterial statement so much as a press release. Given the conflicting information that has been coming out of the Vatican for the last few years, I don't think it is possible to just blindly believe such statements. I hope and pray I am wrong.
Joe and others: Read Michael Davies. Read Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. Read Msgr. Wrenn. All of these good men exposed a great deal of harm done by those who enacted changes after the Council. Fr. Wiltgen ably documents the events of the Council itself. Davies details the failings of many of the documents, and how they have been exploited. Msgr. Wrenn deals very specifically with the Catechism, and with the ill effects of the theologians, liturgists, and catechists, all of which groups (as organizations) have joined forces in opposition to the Magisterium.
I wrote a little bit about Vatican II and it's proper place here on my blog:
http://cemeterypicnic.blogspot.com/2012/03/pope-paul-vi-example-of-papal.html
Marc
Post a Comment