Translate

Sunday, February 20, 2022

BEFORE AND AFTER AS WELL AS A QUESTION, COULD WE GET THAT MANY SOLDIERS TO MASS TODAY?

 The before photo is 1941 Macon, Georgia. The soldiers from a nearby army camp are preparing to go to war. I don’t know the specifics of this Mass with a bishop, presumably the Bishop of Savannah, but I doubt that the soldiers were ordered to attend Mass by their army superiors. I doubt this is a Sunday Mass.

Could we get that many Catholic soldiers to attend Mass in a community church today? And if so, why? And If not, why?

This is one of the best photos of the Church prior to a complete restoration of the building which included a liturgical renovation as well which is below this very historic photo:




25 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Could we get that many Catholic soldiers to attend Mass in a community church today?

Yes, if soldiers 1) understood that they are spiritual as well as material beings, 2) understood that they are weakened by concupiscence and in need of the grace of redemption, 3) understood that they are, as humans, called to live in service of the larger community, and 4) lived in a culture that we supportive of these realities.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, and a Mass with a masculine “militant” look, no nonsense, but attractive to a combatants’ personality and willingness to actually experience laying down their lives in mortal combat for God and country, red martyrdom.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The look of the mass - and I don't buy, at all, this "masculine" v "feminine" nonsense - will have no effect whatsoever on a person, soldier or civilian, who does not acknowledge his/her dual nature, who does not acknowledge his/her brokeness and need for a savior, who lives his/her life for him/herself rather than others, and who lives in a culture that is as radically individualistic and materialistic as ours has become.

TJM said...

Father K,

LOL - you vote for a Party that loves to destroy life in the womb!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Frmjk, I think you are completely oblivious to sociology and anthropology in terms of the Mass and its ethos. I would say to you, as I would in the areas of science and biology, that we have to take sociology and anthropology into account or you get deniers of the the truths of these sciences, like those who think a biological male can become a woman or some kind of fluid gender--it goes against science, biology and chemistry of course and in fact against psychology too. The same with what you call "nonsense" about sociological and anthropological implications about style and ethos.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

That you bring up the issue of transgenderism with your usual lack of understanding shows that you are grasping at straws. Well, grasp all you want.

That being said, tell us, good Fr. ALLAN McDonald, about the "sociology and anthropology" of the use of Latin, maniples, superfluous signs of the cross, ad orientem, chant, multiple altar servers, etc.

As for "ethos," another term you enjoy tossing around but have little or no understanding of, the ethos of our culture and, as it is a subset of our culture, the military, is that of materialism, a non-recognition of the need for salvation, a radical individualism that serves self, not others. You can put on a glamorous production of a solemn mass with all the bells and whistles, as you might a Renaissance Faire or a Civil War battle re-enactment. That doesn't - and cannot - recreate the "ethos" that gave rise to and supported the EF. Without that, you're just burning incense and ringing bells.

TJM said...

One good thing - with the passing of time - priests and bishops like the annoying one who posts here will have gone to their just reward and our younger, tradition minded priests will undo the wreckage they left

George said...

Father Emil Kapaun served as a chaplain at U.S. Army Camp Wheeler which was just outside of Macon.

Link to story:


Father Emil Kapaun-Chaplain-Medal of Honor recipient-Servant of God

the Egyptian said...

quite honestly that church was perfect as it was. The only thing lacking was better lighting.
why is it before V2 wreckovation we seem to think of churches as dark and drab, possibly because of black and white photos, with modern lighting and color photos, staged as they are today they would look far different!
Frmjk, you really are a downer, "a Renaissance Faire or a Civil War battle re-enactment". If that is all the Latin Mass mass is to you, I pity you. PS a man is a man and a woman is a woman, are you confused? I don't think Christ was or is

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

E: I agree with you. When we were in the process of renovating the sanctuary, the first thing was to remove the poorly placed altar railing which opened up the sanctuary. But what truly truncated it was the horrible marble altar placed below the original. When we removed that, I realized that there was plenty of room in the sanctuary if we could simply use the ad orientem original attached altar. All that was needed was to place the altar railing one step up from the nave which would have necessitated a much cheaper extension of that first step to accommodate the altar railing and allow space behind it for the priest to distribute Holy Communion.

But everything was in motion to elevate and extend the entire sanctuary into the nave for the new altar placed on the same level as the old one to obscure it.
At that time there would not have been a snow ball’s chance in hell that the bishop would allow the old attached altar to to return as the only altar.

John Nolan said...

A Civil War battle re-enactment (be it Gettysburg 1863 or Naseby 1645) may be historically accurate in terms of weapons, uniforms and drills; but it isn't a real battle. Nobody gets killed (one hopes).

A Solemn Mass according to the 1962 Missal is a real Mass; its efficacy does not depend on its 'ethos', however you define it. The analogy is inapt in itself, and the conclusion is simply crass.

As an aside, the Solemn Mass of the Roman Rite changed little from the days of crude firelocks and smooth-bore cannon until well into the nuclear age. Rites, unlike military technology, do not become obsolete.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

BTW, the church had been repainted and redecorated several times and well into the 1940’s. There was a fire in the cupola caused by lightening which caused a great deal of water damage in the church. I think that happened in the early 1950’s. Thus by the time we renovated it in 2006, the church had been thoroughly redone in terms of paint and decorations and simpler than the look in the 1941 photo. The lighting was very poor and the windows were filthy not allowing light to enter. Every window was removed, restored and thoroughly cleaned and new lighting installed which brightened in an amazing way.

Interestingly, the control panel for the lighting which was in the choir loft malfunctioned several months after the renovation causing the lights to flicker and not come on completely. They discovered a malfunction in the choir loft that caused the computer box/workings to heat and we came very close to a devastating fire there!

John Nolan said...

One question. 'Soldiers preparing to go to war' - in 1941? Pearl Harbor was not bombed until 7 December in that year and the US military was not on a war footing.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

I doubt the empty cassock will comprehend what you are saying. He has become as annoying as a gnat. I guess our genial host tolerates him because he has nowhere else to go!

TJM said...

John Nolan,

The US instituted the draft in September of 1940. Lend Lease was already in effect. Roosevelt was doing what he could to get the US on a war footing prior to Pearl Harbor and was up for re-election in November of 1940, so he publicly was downplaying what was happening behind the scenes. If you have not read it, the book Intrepid lays out the extent of British/US cooperation before Pearl Harbor

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Re-enactments cannot revive the ethos of the time, whether that is the Renaissance or the summer of 1863 in and around Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Celebrating the EF cannot revive the ethos of the times in which it was celebrated. THAT is the analogy, and it is apt.

Were masses to be judged on efficacy, then a celebration in a dank basement with tattered vestments and no music whatsoever would be sufficient to meet the wants of any who prefer the EF over the NO. However....

TJM said...

Fr. K.

LOL, the Civil War was fought from 1861-1865, thus a re-enactment speaks to the ethos of the time.

In stark contrast, the EF has been around in substantialy the form we knew it as children for over 1500 years. It was around during the Middle Ages, the Protestant Revolt, the French and American Revolutions, the Civil War, WW I and WW II and much of the Cold War. The EF is not tied to the ethos of a particular time, it has transcended time and space, unlike the OF, which is not wearing well, and as Father Fox has mentioned several times no one really likes it, otherwise why are priests and liturgy committees always tinkering with it?

John Nolan said...

'Celebrating the EF cannot revive the ethos of the times in which it was celebrated.'

'Without that [ethos] you're just burning incense and ringing bells.'

By the same token one could argue that celebrating the Novus Ordo cannot revive the ethos of the 1970s, and without that you're simply strumming guitars and singing outdated pop ditties.
And the analogy would be with an ABBA tribute band.

ByzRus said...

From the Easter Vigil:


1. Christ yesterday and today (he cuts a vertical line);
2. the Beginning and the End (he cuts a horizontal line);
3. the Alpha (he cuts the letter Alpha above the vertical line);
4. and the Omega (he cuts the letter Omega below the vertical line).
5. All time belongs to him (he cuts the first numeral of the current year in the upper
left corner of the cross);
6. and all the ages (he cuts the second numeral of the current year in the upper right
corner of the cross).
7. To him be glory and power (he cuts the third numeral of the current year in the
lower left corner of the cross);
8. through every age and for ever. Amen (he cuts the fourth numeral of the
current year in the lower right corner of the cross).

Ethos is irrelevant here. Longing for the camaraderie, sense of purpose and societal order of that era is relevant and reasonable given the vulnerabilities people now feel given the societal and social shift that has occurred since then.

"BEFORE AND AFTER AS WELL AS A QUESTION, COULD WE GET THAT MANY SOLDIERS TO MASS TODAY?" I doubt it. Societal shift has just been too extreme, formation in the "home" might not align with our notion of the ideal, the en masse fall into line and march into the church "onward Christian soldiers" is not what many young people have been taught/socialized to do. Additionally, the armed forces are more diverse than years ago so, while the Catholic population might still be large, it might not be the high percentage of years ago.

"Yes, and a Mass with a masculine “militant” look". I don't know that it necessarily was more masculine or militant looking. Lace in abundance, pastel anglo depictions on ceilings, floral brocades on vestments? It was, without question, ordered, vertical, demanding, challenging, capturing of the church militant essence. In that respect, it appeals to masculine sensibilities.

"Re-enactments cannot revive the ethos of the time". 100%

"superfluous signs of the cross". Perhaps to a Roman. To an Eastern Catholic, or an Orthodox, they are not. Don't say that around a bunch of long beards (priests) unless you're sitting close to the door.

"Maniple" - It's a vestment. Why is it so maligned?

"Ad Orientem". It's a posture - one that unifies a body with a leader and followers supplicating themselves before their Lord and God. Why is this simple and natural action of worship so maligned? Here, I actually think ethos comes into play.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Maniple" - It's a vestment. Why is it so maligned?

I take the lowly maniple as a symbol of that which was maintained simply because it had been hanging around (ahem) for a long time. It would be the equivalent of the requirement that, when the priest folds his hand as REQUIRED by the rubrics, the right thumb is REQUIRED to be placed on top of the left. Why is it necessary to maintain such a rubric other than, "Well, we've always done it that way."?

ByzRus said...

Why is it necessary to maintain such a rubric other than, "Well, we've always done it that way."?

I understand your point, Fr., but at the same time I have to ask why is it necessary to question everything? Is it all really broken? Look what happened with the formulaic change to the baptismal rite that has caused such confusion. Being a baptism of that era, am I even Catholic? I'll never know but of all the things I have to worry about in this life, why would that need to be one of them?

The cuffs on the priests wrists in this photo are the equivalent of the maniple. Yes, it hangs there and, yes, it might have held a handkerchief to wipe away ones sweat/tears, but the equivalency, at least to me, would compel me to vest in one. Just me.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Slovo4.jpg/250px-Slovo4.jpg

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Byz - The question before us - me and you and everyone else on this blog - is what is the best route to take in terms of the liturgy. Do these mere human traditions serve the purpose of the liturgy as they once may have done? Is there a better way to do what we do?

There's an old joke told about the tradition followed in one family of cutting the small end off the Christmas ham before it was put into the oven to bake. They had always done it this way, so the youngest daughter, when preparing the festive meal, was getting the ham ready, she cut off the small end. After doing so, she called her mom and asked, "How come we always cut off the small end of the Christmas ham?"

Her mom replied, "I don't know, but that's the way my mother always did it."

The mom then called her mom, asking, "Why do we always cut off the small end of the Christmas ham before we put it in the oven?"

HER mom replied, "Well, let's see. I guess that's the way my mother always did it."

So then SHE calls HER mom, the great-grandmother of the youngest daugter, and asks, "Mom, how come we always cut off the small end of the Christmas ham when we put it in the oven?"

"Well," her mother replied, "back in those days I had a very small oven and if I didn't cut off that small end it wouldn't fit."

That which becomes a "tradition" may not always have the most meaningful origins. They then take on a meaning of their own and are accorded far greater significance than they might deserve, simply because, "We've always done it that way."

As for your baptism, uness you have a good, solid reason to suspect that you were not baptized validly - and seeing a story about some character who used the wrong pronoun, God help him, is not a good solid reason - then just don't worry about it.

If you need something to worry about, worry that your bank isn't making mistakes on your deposits.

ByzRus said...

Fr MJK,

My baptism, occurring a few years after all the changes, doesn't really concern me, but with these stories, how can you not wonder even if very casually? I figure, I am what in good conscience I know myself to be, the rest is up to the almighty who will take care of all. Others, may read stories about incorrect pronouns (sacramental, not secular) and just never be at peace. It's a shame, that's all. Questioning and change gone wild.

As for tradition and change that at least to me, needed to happen, please see my comment in the liturgical magic wand posting. I'm sorry, but, to me, that's one of the sillier things I've seen. Also, and to me, the papal golden straw (fistula??? it probably didn't even have the bendy part in the middle) also seems to be enjoying a well deserved retirement. Last, those mile long cappa magnas. Why was that necessary? There's no concept of this in the East. The closest equivalent is the mantiya which has a very slight train. The wearer does not require the assistance of others to move about in it. Total self help there.

I get your point, but at times, I think there should have been a line that prevented wholesale abandonment as opposed to organic retirement/evolution. In principle, I don't believe the mass was the problem. The problem was the proverbial "froo-froo", including the brief list that I mentioned above, that had been appended onto it and other ceremonies over the years. The East has ceremony to be sure, but could never approach the scale of all these para-liturgical/non-liturgical actions and things that came to be in the West. The liturgy needed to be freed and restored, not radically revamped.

John Nolan said...

Every year, on the Queen's 'official' birthday (early June) there is a ceremony called Trooping the Colour on Horse Guards Parade in London. It attracts a world-wide audience and involves detachments of the five regiments of Foot Guards (in their instantly recognizable scarlet tunics and bearskins), the Household Cavalry in their Napoleonic breastplates and plumed helmets, King's troop Royal Horse Artillery with their First World War 13-pounders, and the massed bands of the Household Division.

As a tradition it doesn't predate the 20th century, but harks back to the days when soldiers in battle had to recognize their colours (flags) as a rallying point. Guards last wore their bearskins in action during the Crimean War (1854-56) and colours were carried into action for the last time in 1885, when the red coat was replaced by drab khaki.

So why does this ritual mean so much to the troops taking part (who are first and foremost fighting soldiers), their families and countless others who may or may not have a military background? To answer this we need to examine the importance of ritual in human behaviour and its relation to religious observance, and the significance of shared history and tradition.

Fr Kavanaugh would have us believe that if something is not immediately comprehensible and relevant to 21st century Americans it is of no importance. Paradoxically he excoriates present-day society as being in thrall to individualism and materialism. I have news for him - it was ever thus.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Fr Kavanaugh would have us believe that if something is not immediately comprehensible and relevant to 21st century Americans it is of no importance."

Not by a long shot, John. Not by a long shot. Salvation in Christ may not be comprehensible and relevant to many in the 21st century, but it is of vital importance. Believing in the power of grace, which to many is incomprehensible, is of vital importance. Understanding that we are fallen in our human nature, all of us, and in need of salvation is sadly rejected by many as irrelevant, yet is is worth believing.

I don't believe that previous cultures were as radically individualistic as we are today, again, not by a long shot. The organizations that formed from the collective desire for self-help and mutual reliance were products of the past when we had a deeper sense of community and belonging to a village, town, borough, or clan. Today, these groups struggle for the committed involvement of folks who are willing, as Rev. John Winthrop said in 1630 on the Arabella, "We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience, and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body."