This is the Holy Trinity Catholic Chapel of West Point. While the altar is a bit too box like, they have made the best of a not so good liturgical choice for the altar. I see it is set up for the Modern Roman Missal Mass to be celebrated ad orientem.
The Marine base at Paris Island also celebrates Mass ad orientem. Men, especially real men, seem to like ad orientem better than the more “feminine” facing toward the congregation type Mass.
I wonder though, did these manly men at West Point decorate the chapel for Christmas. Maybe it was a way to camouflage Christmas Mass in war time outside?
34 comments:
"...the more “feminine” facing toward the congregation type Mass."
Nonsense.
FrMJK you will have to take that up with Msgr. Stephen Rossetti who said it at one of our clergy conferences many years ago.
I had the same thought about leadership some years ago. We were loaded at the door of a C-130 waiting for the GO! to exit for an airdrop. About two minutes out our commander pushed his way to the front of the line and hooked up his static line to be first out. It was a sign of his willingness to not just be commander but to be identified as such including the responsibilities for our actions, success, and failures. He went on from the front of that small unit to the front of 82nd Airborne. SOCOM, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I have never heard anyone speak of him with anything less than the highest respect and his examples of leadership remain valuable, priceless, to this day.
Msgr. Rossetti can say what he likes, it remains nonsense. This is one of those canards traditionalists like to throw around, bleiving that if they say it often enough people will, uncritically, take it as the truth.
For example: "Parishes used to be packed with men who saw the mass (ad orientem) as something masculine, inspiring, and something worth sacrificing time for."
Oh really? Who told the author, Sam Guzman, that they saw it as more masculine? He wasn't around to ask them. Are there no other reasons men and women have ceased going to mass?
Or: "The very fact that a woman can now distribute communion or read the Epistle immediately makes the liturgy less masculine."
Oh, really? When was it revealed to us that the liturgy was supposed to be "masculine" in the first place? It's an action of the Church, often referred to as "she." It's an action of men and women, all members of the Church.
Or: "Latin sounds incredibly masculine when you hear it." Where does this come from? What makes a language sound more masculine? Guzman says it, "...has strong and concrete cadences."
Oh, and there are no other strong and concrete cadences in other languages?
This masculinity nonsense is made up out of whole cloth.
Fr K
It is Catholic culture, the Mass which is such an important aspect of it. The way you believe is the way you pray. You either have it, live it, understand it, or you do not. No need to be hysterical about it.
And yes, the priest is always male. Tradition matters. It is the basis of understanding identity - who you are as a Catholic priest. Not having or understanding tradition forces/allows one to make things up. According to Saint Paul VI the smoke of Satan has entered the Church while the Council left the Gates wide open. Hence, Catholic Culture is drowning in liquid modernity.
John - I do not share your rather Manichean "either/or" view: "You either have it, live it, understand it, or you do not."
I have a very good understanding of Tradition. I also understand that there is a world of difference between Tradition and traditionalism.
FR K
"Traditionalism" is a low class ideology inspired term, overused in modernist catholic circles to shut up the opposition's factual arguments. Your mobilist theology contains a heavy dose of "on the one hand -and- on the other hand" relativistic heresy.
John "Traditionalism" is not low-class, unless you, from your self-elevated position, consider great theologians such as Jaroslav Pelikan to be purveyors of low-class terms.
His quote: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."
His book, "Vindication of Tradition" is worth the effort.
FR K
Pelikan was a Lutheran theologian not Catholic. However, later he repented (see the citation below).
After a long life as a Lutheran scholar of church history, Jaroslav Pelikan was chrismated in the Orthodox Church on 25 March 1998, at the age of 75.
International Journal of Orthodox Theology 5:1 (2014) urn:nbn:de:0276-2014-1049
Ambrose Mong Ih-Ren
Return to Orthodoxy: An Examination of Jaroslav Pelikan’s Embrace of the Eastern Faith
John - I know very well Pelikan's religious history. Knowing that Lutheranism was not the faith he had come to understand through his study, he struggled mightily in choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
That he was a Lutheran most of his professional career doesn't matter, nor does it make him less "great."
For anyone who wants a very, very deep dive into the history of Christianity, of which Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism are integral parts, I highly recommend his "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" (5 volumes). I think this is the only scholarly work I have read that uses, not footnotes, not endnotes, but sidenotes!
As reviewer David Lotz wrote in First Things, a far-right-of-center but very worthwhile journal, wrote, "And these reflections lead to my final word. One comes away from a consecutive reading of The Christian Tradition with three superlatives firmly fixed in mind: monumental, magisterial, and ministerial.
Looks like Father “Abortion is Healthcare” has attracted a new fan!
This is ok.
Appears to be a frame with a curtain. Looks nice but, at least to me, lacks substance.
The altar is out of proportion. More Russian style which is fine if there's an iconostas before it.
I don't know that I agree with the characterization of "feminine".
Perhaps it is better to say that ad orientem appeals to masculine emotions as, men, tend to both understand and react to someone leading them....Church militant.
Versus populem likely appeals more to female emotions of "together" and "sharing".
As for trendy/whitewashed/banal/forced on the faithful by the illumaniti architecture...however one wishes to characterize, coupled with questionable hymnography, vestiture and homiletics in places, the Roman Church brought that upon itself and/or someone selfishly is imposing their agenda on others and is using the Church and mass to make their statement / advance their agenda.
Could it be the eye of the beholder at work? If men see an appeal to masculinity, are they wrong? I am probably a heretic but I think that the male priesthood for the feminine Church is exactly what God demands from men as correction for our categorical failure of Eve to correct and help overcome her surrender to Temptation. No doubt Adam was excited by her free thinking attitude and the carnal pleasures it promised. Men have failed women ever since by linking them to our lusts and wants rather than helping them to fulfillment of God’s promise and union with Him. It was a woman chosen as the sublime example of surrender to God’s will. Ecce ancilla Domini. Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuam. We are completely humbled by the example of that submission. It is an ongoing submission for men to offer Mass and a reparation to lead God’s people as Adam should have done. So if the Mass has masculine features it is a good thing so as to attract men as men to fulfill our proper role.
Versus populum aka group hug! Feminine priests adore this posture!
I wouldn't call versus populum feminine. Both masculinity and femininity can be found in the Church's liturgical traditions. Versus populum is effeminate, rather than feminine--making an affected simulacrum of the feminine virtues, which imitation is completely inappropriate to the man standing in persona of the God-Man.
N- Up might recall that when Chalcedon decreed,
"So, following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; of one essence with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same of one essence with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, the same born of Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity"
it was not making a decree on his male-ness. Rather, the Council was speaking to his humanity. Recall, also, that humanity in composed of males and females.
The maleness of the incarnate Son of God and the biblical term Son of Man cannot be separated from the incarnation! Male and female comprises the anthropological context of Holy Orders and Matrimony. Christ the Head of the Church is both Bridegroom and and High Priest, not Bride or Priestess.The Church collectively is feminine in terms of our souls which the Latin word Anima is feminine to receive the “seed” of the Holy Spirit and subsequent graces, especially the graces of the Wedding Feast of Heaven, the Most Holy Eucharist.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald. If it is your contention that the decree of the Council of Chalcedon was intended to define the male-ness of Jesus Christ, then you should hand back your ordination certificate.
It is impossible to separate Christ’s Maleness from His Humsnity and it would be a heresy to do so just as it is impossible to separate his Divinity from His Humanity!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - No one is trying to deny that Jesus was a male. If that's what you think is happening in my posts, you should hand back your 8th grade diploma because your reading comprehension level stinks.
Fr. MJK,
The temperature is a little high it seems.
I'm looking at the papal encyclical from 451 AD.
While the Council didn't likely set out to specifically define Christ's maleness versus seraphim, for example, what else would he be when confirming his humanity? "Perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man etc".
Thank God FRMJK that you clarified what otherwise would be a heresy. The humanity of The BVM cannot be separated from her femininity! I am no glad you get it and you are not allowing LGBTQ+++ ideologies to infect your theology!
Fr. MJK,
Admittedly, I do not have the time to study the Council and resulting encyclical in detail.
Also. It is possible my reading comprehension stinks as well.
The Council affirmed Christ's divinity and humanity and by so doing, addressed the doecetism heresy. Obviously, his incarnate form was male. Humanity, generally, does not seem to be the focus.
Regarding your response to "N", I suppose both myself and Fr. AJM are not grasping the point you are making. Kindly elaborate.
Thank you.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - Your are welcome. I will happily clarify your poor understanding of the Church's doctrines any day.
Fr. MJK, your talents for obfuscation acquit your formators well. You raise a decree on the Council of Chalcedon that is inapposite by your own admission and the irrelevant fact that the human race consists of both males and females, imply by these statements that there is no reason to believe that Christ's humanity was masculine and then backtrack when called out for it, accuse Fr. McDonald of saying something that his comment obviously did not say, and then belittle him (more than once!)
To separate the maleness of Christ from His humanity is error. Don't wave around Council decrees to imply that we should do so. His maleness is inextricable from His humanity.
ByzRus, I suppose the reason you do not grasp his point is that Fr. MJK made no real point.
Nick
Old Nick - Jesus was human and a male. I don't dispute that; no one I know does. Nor do I attempt to separate his being male from his being human.
I raised the Council of Chalcedon in response to your attempt to suggest the liturgy is masculine because Jesus was the God-Man. I suggest that is nonsense. What is defined is that Jesus is truly God and truly human.
Oh my FRMJK! You keep digging toward the grave of heresy. “Jesus was a human and a male” as though those are two different categories. And he “was”? News flash, Jesus still is a man in His incarnated humanity and HE remains the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity with His male genitalia. His humanity has to be either male or female not just the generic human. You indicate a neutered humanity. That is not how God created Adam and Eve. Yes indeed to refer to the Incarnation as a neutered humanity is a heresy.
To make a long story short, FRMJK, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen in His glorified Body is still a male. There is no need to add the modifier a human male, since Jesus is not an animal. Maleness implies human as does femaleness. To use humanity or person independent of their gender is a heresy.
Fr. MJK, your obfuscation and blurry logic are really astonishing. I at no point suggested that the liturgy is masculine because Jesus was both God and man. In fact, I said the exact opposite: "Both masculinity and femininity can be found in the Church's liturgical traditions." You also completely elide two separate statements to create some sort of causative link between the two that did not exist. You have a tendency to do this but I have no idea why.
I did state that it is appropriate for the priest to express masculinity, rather than effeminacy, because of Who he represents, i.e., he represents He who is both God and man. Thankfully, you have now backtracked on the erroneous assertion that Christ's human nature was something other than male.
Also, I really am not sure why you refer to me as Old Nick, as opposed to N (or Nick; I initially set my Google name as N and now I don't know how to change it). I can't believe that you would be making some connection between me and the devil, who of old was called Old Nick. That certainly wouldn't be very Christian of you.
Old Nick - Much of what has been said in this thread is about the masculinity of the liturgy. It began with Fr. ALLAN McDonald's post in which he said, "Men, especially real men, seem to like ad orientem better than the more “feminine” facing toward the congregation type Mass." It is in that context that I read and understand your posts.
I have not backtracked - I never said or suggested that Jesus was not male, That is YOUR misreading of my posts.
Fr. MJK, to be clear, I am not the devil nor do I go by one of his nicknames (no pun intended). Please call me N (or Nick, if that is more convenient). I'll sign my comments to prevent any confusion with Old Scratch.
Three people have now reasonably inferred such a suggestion from what your comments say and do not say. It may be worthwhile to be more specific in your language.
Nick
In the deleted comment I posted a double negative. Arrrgggghh!
Here's the corrected post:
Nick - To be clear, I did not deny that Jesus was male, nor did I suggest such. I wish you'd quote the the post(s) in which you think I did.
Understand that Fr. ALLAN McDonald consistently and intentionally infers from posts what is not there. It's his shtick - he thinks it's cute. Keep reading this blog and you'll find him saying "Oh, you've proven my point!" when, in fact, I have done nothing of the sort.
I think as long as people use pseudonyms or initials, unless you're JFK or LBJ or FDR, there can be zero imputation of meaning given to names used for or about them.
Post a Comment