As I reflected upon that "second" first Mass in 2007, I thought to myself how much more oriented to the "cultic" priesthood it is compared to the Ordinary Form of the Mass and how not facing the congregation made it more profoundly prayerful for me.
I also reflected upon the "masculinity" of this form of the Mass and its appeal to men. Its ethos is more masculine while the ethos of the Ordinary Form of the Mass is more feminine.
But I also reflected on the role of the altar boy and how regimented their role is in this Mass and how much they must do and how well practiced they must be and how seriously they must take their role as they represent the laity during the Mass.
All of these experiences have led me to understand one of the many reasons why so many men, young men, would sacrifice life, career, wife and family to become a priest. The number of vocations both to the religious life and priesthood was fueled by the Tridentine Mass. Surely there were other factors such as large families and a more monolithic approach to being Catholic and a common catechism that was well taught by religious sisters and brothers. There was Catholic community too, with common religious practices and no carping at one another or disparaging of one's private prayer life or popular devotions. Their was respect for religion, spirituality and all things Catholic. Try reading more liberal oriented blogs and you will see how much that has dissipated and how ugly modern Catholics have become to one another. Heck, read some of the comments on my blog for that too!
But the Tridentine Mass was the foundation of vocations and strong Catholic families and life.
Can we recapture that in the Ordinary Form of the Mass? I'm not sure.
12 comments:
The best line at RCIA last night was when someone was arguing with Fr. Dawid about Sunday Mass attendance and said, "But, Father..." Fr. Dawid responded, "Don't 'but Father' me..."
Fr. MacDonald, don't you need a permanent Vicar...
Father,
After becoming familiar with the older form of the Mass in the early 1990's, I got the same impression--that the older form is more masculine. In a superficial sense, some might see this as paradoxical with its greater fussiness regarding rubrics and external details and its usual (though not essential) association with lace-trimmed albs and fancier vestments (certainly, I think having to wear a hat, the biretta, when entering and leaving the church is more "old school" masculine!).
There's something deeper there that does have a greater appeal to men and I wish I could put my finger on it. If we had still been using the older Mass during my formative years (I grew up with the '65 Missal and, mostly, the early Novus Ordo), I might have more seriously considered a priestly vocation (of course, I've also said that if railroads still used steam locomotives I might have become an engineer!). I would appreciate any further insight you (or anyone else) might have into why the older form of the Mass appeals more to men.
When I started investigating the TLM in 2007 I remember reading so many things by Traditionalists that I scoffed at. How assisting at that particular Liturgy would change things about myself that were not even directly related the Mass, or Religion. Let 5 years further on I am humbled by the transformation. My religion injects itself into what I read, what I listen to, what I will accept and what I will not. How I eat, how I view myself and the world around me. There is an intangible effect of the TLM which I simply can not describe in any adequate way, and certainly nothing I ever felt will pew sitting in an OF. I have stopped trying to understand it, and simply let it work it's mystery upon me, and accept that the Mass of All Ages, the Mass which created Martyrs and Saints for centuries is the better tool for the job.
Ohhh, can we borrow Fr. Dawid? ;)
Joe, my undergraduate degree is in sociology and therefore I understand the gender roles are very much decided by society and culture. In the 1950's and 60's masculine roles were identified as being warrior-like, protector, fighter, provider, stoic, strong, and introverted or meditative. Female roles were softer, open, community oriented, mother, housewife, etc.
The Tridentine Mass has military characteristics to it, precision, regimentation, little 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, love and caring by his demeanor which are traditionally female qualities.
The Tridentine Mass inspires males who are not into the touchy-feely, smiley, empathetic, or creative, free wheeling. 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.
In fact I once heard Fr. Stephen Rossetti state that he thought the modern Mass made women (and some men) more attracted the priest himself and not always in healthy ways, because the priest comes across in the Ordinary Form as "available,open, warm, etc" and sometimes unlike most men women know, especially their husbands. As well the large arm gestures and the greetings and other times says symbolically, Here I am come and get me! I'm available. Women (and some men) love that in a man. (I might have to make this into a separate post).
I'm not sure it's the rite rather than the reverance that's the source of vocational inspiration.
Put it this way...if the rite itself (vs. the self-selected reverence of Tridentine rite priests and laity) necessarily leads to vocations and general holiness, how do we explain the loss of faith pre-Vatican II when nothing but the Latin Mass was said on all the Church's altars? How did modernism creep into the seminaries and chanceries before 1970 if the Tridentine rite and old rubrics, old way of doing things are intrinsically better?
That said, liturgical pomp and lay preparation matters: either one missing will reduce the experience.
I tend to agree about the reform of the Mass could bring us back to the EF reverence if only we would bring back the EF reverence--but you could still have the English or vernacular Mass, ad orientem but with precision and beauty and stricter rubrics which should be followed--much of the rubrics for the OF Mass are left to one's creativity, not so in the EF, everything is stated and quite clearly. But Vatican II did open Pandora's Box and I am still astonished at how quickly the "house of cards" fell in terms of the institutional Church, meaning, seminaries, monasteries, convents, religious life and the identity of the priesthood--the laity's loss of identity happened more slowly but as a direct result of catechesis and example of those who knocked down the house of cards--why that was is still a mystery--maybe pre-Vatican II was more superficial than we thought?
I think Vat II was a misguided effort to reverse the loss of faith brought about, not by the TLM or the authority of the Church, but by the cultural syncretism and relativism that was unavoidable anywhere (long before Vat II) in society, prtoestant or Catholic. But, in my opinion, rather than trying to adapt through loosening up, the Church should have reinforced her traditions and been even more insistent on what is the True Church. You never negotiate with the enemy (secularism/humanism).
Maybe the masculine feel of the EF and the feminine feel of the OF have something to do with the orientation of the priest. It could be a subconscious gender- based/pyschological thing--men naturally wanting to point towards something (ad orientem) and women wanting to embrace something (versus populum/"Gather Us In").
Of course, the more regimented military-like and historically encrusted rubrics and other externals (even the use of Latin, another vestige of historical usage)also appeal to a lot of us men. Do you think we'd get as many Marine Corps recruits if they got rid of their unique dress blue uniforms and officer's swords which are suggestive of the past? Do you think we'd get as many Knights of Columbus men desiring to advance to the Fourth Degree in that Order if they got rid of their swords and chapeaux (the hats that look like early nineteenth century naval officers)?
Boys and a lot of men like that kind of stuff--I know I do. I went through a phase when I was 10-12 years old where I was very enthusiastic about military things and uniforms and liked to play soldier. By the time I was old enough to join (there was no war at that time) I was not as enthused, partly because the real military at that time (early 1980's) was not wearing all the "cool stuff" and using the same equipment that I had seen and admired in the World War II and World War I movies as a boy.
For some of us, whether it's being a soldier, a railroad engineer, or a priest, the desire to enter a particular vocation is not purely about the real essential purpose of the vocation itself. For example, the purpose of a railroad is to haul goods and passengers as safely and as cheaply as possible. Do you think most men who become engineers do so because they want to haul goods and passengers or do you think many go into that job because they like and admire the equipment they will be using (whether steam or diesel-electric)? The same could be said for the priesthood-even though it is a very different and special calling, unlike a railraod engineer. There still has to be that love for what you will be doing--and it's not always completely about the bottom-line essential purpose of saving souls. The love for what you do can be, in part, based on how you must perform the task as much as the task itself.
whoahh! how'd you get a picture from bird's eye view?
from a brave photographer in the cupola!
"gender roles are very much decided by society and culture"
I'd say rather that society and culture are formed by the very real differences in gender. Society and culture evolves by centuries of rubbing against human nature and reflects them far more than forms them.
Post a Comment