Near the beginning of the Sword of Honour trilogy, Evelyn Waugh allows his main protagonist (it will hardly do to call him a ‘hero,’) Guy Crouchback, a moment of epiphany when the news of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is revealed: ”The enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off. It was the Modern Age in arms.” Suddenly the world is the way the Crouchback, the scion of an ancient Catholic family, needs it to be. The moral complexities, the ambiguities attendant on everyday life, the shabby little compromises, all these were swept away – there was a righteous cause once more.
Within two years, Crouchback’s hopes were dashed. As he struggled back to Egypt from the wreckage of a doomed attempt to save Crete, the news came of the German invasion of Russia:
“He was back after less than two years’ pilgrimage in a Holy Land of illusion in the old ambiguous world, where priests were spies and gallant friends proved traitors and his country was led blundering into dishonour.”
The “Crusade” moment may have brought peace and clarity to Crouchback, but in the real world from which he was escaping, it led his country close to invasion and defeat. By June 1940 Britain and her Empire stood alone against a Continent divided between German and Russia. Had it not been for the invasion of Russia, it is hard to see how Britain, even with American help (had that come) could have won the war. It was the very event Crouchback so deplored which brought the downfall of the evil of Nazism. But it resulted in the triumph of Communism and its dominance in Eastern Europe for half a century, and its pernicious influence remained a global threat into recent times.
The lesson is clear. What we were brought up to believe, that the good guys win because they are the good guys, and however great the odds against them are, they can be surmounted. That is not true.
We can, if we like, comfort ourselves with the thought that as Christians we can survive in some pure bubble of like-minded Christians, but that is not only a delusion, it is in itself a betrayal of the Great Commission. Jesus did not say “Go thou and take the Benedict option” – we have an imperative duty to share the good news. We live and exist in a world which is not as we would want it to be; but we always have.
One constant feature of human thinking is to posit the existence of a golden age. It happened just before we came to consciousness. So, in one version of this, there was a time of tight, faithful Catholic communities, when the age-old Mass ruled, priests were diligent and pious, and all was well with the world; then came Vatican II and the world began to go to hell in a handcart. Put so baldly it is clearly nonsense, unless one posits (as its proponents do) a Satanic conspiracy to destroy the Church. Had that golden age existed, then its inhabitants would surely have been able to have resisted?
We cannot, as Christians, retreat from the public square and try to keep ourselves pure. We are bound to stay and bear witness amidst the messiness and brokenness which are the inevitable concomitants of what we believe about the human condition. Do we find those things in our own Church? Of course we do, why would we not? The temptation at such times is to think oneself a better Catholic than those we think are less orthodox than us; that too is part of our own brokenness. It is unsure that people are saved by their orthodoxy; it is certain that our own uncharitableness and want of love will have a bad effect on us.
That should not be read as meaning belief does not matter; it does. But it does mean that we need to get things in order. That we disagree with our fellow Catholics is natural. That we express it in terms which imply that we are entitled to consider them as agents of Satan is to elect ourselves to a position that can be held only by God. We cannot judge as He can.
Christians have a duty to engage in the public square. If I were to make a complaint, it would be that we have been too willing to to speak about the moral components of our faith to the world whilst not emphasising its roots in Christ. We believe in loving each other because we are one in Christ, which is the same reason that we engage in good works, in education and in politics. We witness in what we do and say. What, to one, is righteous zeal is, to another, an act of bigoted self-righteousness. It was and always will be so until her comes again in Glory.
Crouchback’s experience is that of the world. There is a clarity in the enemy being clear, but if within our own self there is a satisfaction in that because it makes our live easier, that is not necessarily the road that God intends us to take. God is love and the world is as it is. That expresses the task before us. To believe both parts of that sentence, and the make the world a better place for our work and witness.
Christians have genuine disagreements about law and economics in the secular world, which is why both prayer and research are important if we are to find unity in addressing the “big issues” of our time. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic about the filtering effect of ideologies that make genuine dialogue and persuasion difficult.
Retreat into a circle of like-minded people is sometimes necessary in the interests of avoiding pointless nastiness. Self-control is a virtue, and one I personally have to work at. I have not always been good at curbing myself and avoiding saying what I think. This place has been a challenging experience for me as I have grown over the years, dialoguing with Christians who have different viewpoints. From time to time I have questioned whether it was even moral for me to be here: hence at least one self-imposed exile a few years back, when I was undergoing counselling.
It is not easy to be zealous for something and to see it treated with apathy or open disdain by other Christians. In truth, the response of other (self-proclaimed) Christians can be more hurtful than the response of our Gentile acquaintances. But both are painful. One group I once belonged to was so passionately anti-Tory / anti-conservatism that I had to leave. I probably should not have been there to begin with, but that did not make hearing anti-conservative sentiment any less unpleasant.
Society is divided and the Church is divided, both within and between denominations. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is that we are losing virtue epistemology as a basis for dialogue and exploration. If we were to properly explain the Christian bases for the good developments in UK law, culture, and economics, we would need thorough lessons. Not many people are really willing to put up with that, either on a Sunday service or at a weekday Christian gathering. Outside of circles of like-minded people, I think a number of us who are passionate in this regard feel like irrelevances in the Church and in the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
With all of that I empathise as well as sympathise. But there is a danger in what can become cultishness. It seems unlikely that the Good News can be spread only by consorting with those of a like mind. It may be more comfortable for us, but then Our Lord did not promise us comfort in this world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m inclined to agree – but I think the first step is finding common ground. I have more hope of bridging divides in some contexts than others, because there is a devotion to Love that will allow us to be honest together. In other contexts, there is none to be had.
LikeLike
Perhaps I am misreading and misunderstanding your points being made . . . or perhaps not.
I find myself agreeing to some points stated and baffled by other statements you have made in the same post. For instance, there is this: “it is clearly nonsense, unless one posits (as its proponents do) a Satanic conspiracy to destroy the Church.” From the beginning Christians have been aware that the antichrist is already in the world and seeds to sift us as wheat as he tried to do with Peter. And if one is not aware that Satan is at work and never tires of trying to destroy Christianity one might just as well embrace acedia and ambivalence to matters of moral or doctrinal irregularity and outright falsities.
A ‘golden age’ can be posited in various times and places for the Church and it is not as though the entire Church is enveloped at the same time. For we are the Church Militant and the war has raged on since the Incarnation. But it is hard to imagine that we cannot look out to periods of conquests and periods of defeat. It is a sine wave not a church struggling for Her last breath. She rises from the ashes over and over again and we have times when the gospel is in season and out of season. And yes, orthodoxy wills out over and over again and will prevail as Christ told us. Funny that the traditional Latin groups (a tiny percentage of Catholics) has now produced as many priests as all of the Novus Ordo practicing Catholics these past few years. Is that only a mistake; an unfortunate happenstance . . . as is the loss of faith in the doctrines including the real presence which continues to grow unabated in our modern post-conciliar Church since VII? Could a Fulton Sheen have a popular program on TV today? Would he not be a laughing stock by most of our bishops and parishioners? Are we producing our own Padre Pio’s and Solanus Casey’s today or are we at a point of waning and await a rebirth of a waxing of the Faith? Do we now replace these saints with Communist heroes such as Oscar Romero and speak of them as great intercessors during our trials?
Then there is this: “It is unsure that people are saved by their orthodoxy; it is certain that our own uncharitableness and want of love will have a bad effect on us.” Now if orthodoxy is (right thinking and thereby objective Truth) and heterodoxy is not, I do not know what use religion plays which binds os to such truths. If these truths are not there to guide us in our living and our beliefs then there is no reason to believe anything; all beliefs being equal and all morality equal as well. And yet we have this from scripture: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him, for whoever greets him shares in his evil works” (2 John 1:10-11). And if we are to judge such amongst ourselves then why would we make it a virtue to remain silent?
The question to me is that we know that we have to live ‘in’ the world but does that mean we must be ‘of’ the world and either love it as it is or ignore it and remain silent? That seems to me a spiritual ‘Benedict Option’ that the majority are playing today. How is that working out for us?
LikeLiked by 3 people
It seems to me, one of the first things we need to do is get over this “pleasing people” spirit that has infected us via the psychologising movement. The Gospel is offensive. Period. It is offensive to the Jews and offensive to the Gentiles. Nothing we can do about that. We should not be aiming to make it palatable to the zeitgeist.
Secondly, we should be serious about being around heterodoxy because it is a corrupting influence. Withdrawing from one congregation does not, of itself, entail withdrawing altogether. One can look for a congregation that is more orthodox. Obviously, this is more problematic for people who are tied to particular denominations; for those who are not, this is a viable option.
Thirdly, I think it is important for Christians to take account of spiritual warfare because of the role it plays in fighting deception, which abounds as the end times proceed towards the Parousia. The coming of the Man of Sin and of the False Prophet (who may or may not be the same individual) is described as being accompanied by deception. Christ talks of false christs and false prophets, saying that the elect would almost be deceived. The non-elect are not promised such protection – so we should be fighting to protect those outside the fold in the hope that they might come in. Alternatively, if one posits that all those who will come in are already protected, and thus do not need protection from deception, then spiritual warfare is still needed as part of our general co-operation with God. It is not supposed to be optional.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well indeed, the Gospel is even offensive to many so-called Christians these days. Infiltration has always been with us but not in the numbers that we see today (perhaps for a short period during the Arian Heresy).
I find it comical, if it weren’t so sad, that traditionalists are considered those who show a lack of love and act as if they are somehow spiritually superior to others. That whole mantra of the ‘Church of Perpetual Peace’ seems to put the entire crisis at hand on its head. It is the traditionalist that is attacked and hated at every move and effort to restore that which was bequeathed to us by the blood of martyrs and the persecution of Christianity over the centuries.
Yes, to call out heterodoxy for what it is seems to me, a responsibility of any Christian when and where he finds it. If you care so little for the faith that it is not worth the risk of being hated for the truth then you are not worthy of such a spiritual calling. And many of us would gladly separate ourselves from the acedia present in most parishes if it were not for the hateful actions and roadblocks being erected against our lawful right (esp. since Summorum Pontificum) to the ancient Mass. For even if we find a priest to say the Mass most bishops (in the US, at least) will not give the priest a venue to say the Mass (even for an hour on Sunday). So we must sit in the company of the heterodox and attempt, even with the ridicule that we are constantly barraged with, to catechize and correct obvious errors and injustice that we find in our own midst.
Indeed our lives are primarily spiritual warfare and it i would be hard put to find a time that this warfare was as intense as it is today within the Church, though it is easy to find times when externally we faced far greater persecution. But though everyone says that wrong is right, it is still wrong and though everyone says that right is wrong; it will still remain right. So the battle rages on and it is on our shoulders to carry the battle forward and expel those who have illegitimately entered into the City of God and would erect the abomination of desolation in the city square.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heresy eats out our relationship with God and at our hope. One front in the great war is the evil denial of Christ’s return. So much of the fog of war we face now amounts to subtle attempts to deny the resurrection and to prevent Christ from assuming His earthly throne. Look at what the Muslims have done and are doing to the Temple Mount, God’s throne on earth, the Mount of Assembly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think our greatest heresy is the loss of the sense of sin. As Pope Pius XII said in his radio address:
“To know Jesus crucified is to know God’s horror of sin; its guilt could be washed away only in the precious blood of God’s only begotten Son become man.
Perhaps the greatest sin in the world today is that men have begun to lose the sense of sin. Smother that, deaden it — it can hardly be wholly cut out from the heart of man — let it not be awakened by any glimpse of the God-man dying on Golgotha’s cross to pay the penalty of sin, and what is there to hold back the hordes of God’s enemy from over-running the selfishness, the pride, the sensuality and unlawful ambitions of sinful man? Will mere human legislation suffice? Or compacts and treaties? In the Sermon on the Mount the divine Redeemer has illumined the path that leads to the Father’s will and eternal life; but from Golgotha’s gibbet flows the full and steady stream of graces, of strength and courage, that alone enable man to walk that path with firm and unerring step.”
I would hope that we these wise words would sink deep into the heart of every Christian in our world today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hell – hell is one of the major preaching points that is absent today from so many gatherings and publications.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That too, of course, which seems to come from a loss of a sense of sin or anything to bar us from Heaven. If we all go to Heaven then what is the point of worrying oneself about the pains of Hell?
LikeLiked by 2 people
All in all, I fear Christianity has become too embroiled in economic, social, and psychological matters and fails to speak to the spiritual and metaphysical questions. Christianity is losing its distinctiveness in the Western mire. John Bunyan would be appalled at the Babylonian captivity of the West and the resurgence of the Beast in the East. All men must die and after that comes the Judgment. I know my eschatological preaching is tedious to everyone – but I don’t care. The wrath of God is coming and I would rather as few people as possible had to face it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe that is the whole point of the linked article: egalitarianism leads us to build a faith around our sense of equality instead of debt to a God Who asks for nothing more than our Love of Him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not the fear of Hell but the love of God which moves us. God is not fear, He is love, and if one is motivated by fear I would ask only this. What would one think of a father who ordered his son to love him on fear of being burned in a fire? Myself, if I knew of one, I should report it to the police.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No different from a father who says playing with fire (sin) may start a fire that will kill you. Or a father who says do not eat or drink that which marked as poison. Fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit and people today are afraid of a two sided coin; heads is love and tails is eternal torment. It makes no difference which side of the coin you look at first . . . eventually you best know them both and understand the Justice of God is always just even if we do not make it to heaven. Our catechism still teaches it are you now standing in opposition to Church teaching not to mention the Gospels or the vision of the children at Fatima (though you are under no obligation to accept Fatima. It just so happens that I do . . . and that she told them that more souls end up in hell for sins of the flesh than for any other sins. A sobering thought in this day of licentiousness and encouragement for those who live in sexual immorality without giving it a second thought. I suppose they feel that since they love God and God loves them they are free to do as they want.
LikeLike
Of course a good case could be made for the points in this article today: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/02/09/the-radical-error-of-our-time/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I certain am opposed to radical egalitarianism. Scripture is full of hierarchies: hierarchies in the world of the spirit; hierarchies among men; hierarchies in the Age to Come. I expect the saints who rule in the Millennium to have differing positions commensurate with the parables Christ tells in the Gospels: to one He gave 10 cities, to another 5, etc…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed hierarchies exist in God’s creation and are seen everywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The difference is that when Christians are truly Christ-like, we are not envious, and so the hierarchy works. In a truly Christian kingdom, the senior figures do not “lord it over” the junior ones. In our world, sin has made us want others to bow down and lick our boots. Pride is everywhere, even among those who proclaim egalitarianism. Look at how so many of these feminists degrade their husbands in their speech – that is not love, that is pride and it disgusts me. That is why, pace NEO, I will not listen to Katie Hopkins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, fallen humanity has made room for Satan and the pride of men and the envy of others. It is a vicious circle my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes: none of us is immune: pride enters the conventional way, but also via Pharisaical self-righteousness, which I believe is what Chalcedon is getting at in today’s piece, among other things. I am amazed at what the early Church managed in Acts – but it did not last – look at Corinth, etc. Sad stories of factionalism, abuse of office, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed humility is a hard task as is obedience and proper use of authority. Fallen man has many things to act as stumbling stones for those who desire to do good and yet still do evil. But we have the opportunity to learn from mistakes and do better the next time at least. Sadly, history ought to have taught us more as should our own life experiences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes: I believe that much of the success of Satan against the Church today comes from naivete on that part of members. Thinking “this time will be different”, their idealism became a backdoor for the Devil. They should have paid greater heed to the past and sought to refine things rather than replace them altogether. What we are seeing now is not “organic development” but wholesale destruction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. Our socialism will be different and have a different outcome than all the socialists in the past; seems to be a type of syndrome doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes – a rather worrying one. People seem to be genuinely brainwashed in some cases. I feel cut off when I talk to some people, rather like the scene at the end of The Last Battle, where the dwarfs are so convinced they are in the grubby little hut that anything of Paradise offered to them seems like straw and dirt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. No appreciation for what we have only disdain for we don’t. The world would be so much better if we could marry whatever sex or species that we want or if I could be whatever gender I want, or if I were not pregnant, or if I were given a guaranteed wage etc. etc. etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truly, it is a vortex of chaos, what the ancients symbolised with the sea and Tiamat/Leviathan. Better to retire from much of the chaos arena – there is no peace in it. The prayer closet is a better place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We hardly have a choice in the matter. They are in power, they have the schools, they have the wealth and the power at present. If you have to work for a living or live in society you must deal with it on a daily basis to some extent . . . though I agree that we have to have our spirit renewed as often as possible through prayer; especially mental or contemplative prayer. That should be what we get on Sunday’s but alas, that too has been sequestered by the spirit of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you are more likely to find comfort in private gatherings in some cases. The Sunday morning service, even in independent churches, is usually not the best place for prayer. Evening services and weekly gatherings in homes are often better for corporate prayer and reflection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For Catholics, private prayer, interspersed with public prayer was a daily event if we wanted to attend; still is if you can find a traditional Mass. But alas, you are right when it is the Novus Ordo. As a Protestant (since I was one) I would find prayer at home in the old prayer closet a better option and it may be that we will be joining you there as the true Mass becomes almost impossible to find or attend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, my hope is for there to be true gatherings where both Protestants and Catholics can pray together. Certainly there are some things, like the March for Life or Prayer for the Nation. I like some of the old set prayers of the liturgical churches – those seem appropriate at certain junctures at informal meetings too between the spontaneous prayers and reflective silences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. There are many places where the fight for Christian Justice (God’s Justice) can and should bring us together as a band of brothers and I can hardly think of more worthy cause than the fight against the barbarity of infanticide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It may be worth seeing what the President does regarding a new peace plan for Israel and the Middle East this year. It may be a flop like those that have been attempted before under Obama, Clinton, et al – but it may be significant – in which case we should all be praying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Satan prowls always, but to be specific, anyone who thinks he was behind Vatican II may need to find a sense of perspective, as such a view only makes sense set against the “golden age” which did not exist. It was an era when the laity were often disengaged, praying their Rosaries or talking, while the priest celebrated Mass unheard. I know enough Catholics a generation older than myself to have heard this often.
The Truth is there to guide us, but praying the Latin Rite Mass will not get you to Heaven; standing in judgment on other might well bar one’s way. Pride was Lucifer’s sin; he preferred his own judgment.
No one in his own time can see who will stand out in a few decades time, but St John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Jean Vanier, are not a bad harvest for our time.
I don’t think the Church does rise from the ashes, she continues through thick and through thin, faithful to her vocation, in the hearts and minds of the people. We might prefer a grander narrative, but simple piety has always known that God will deliver on His promise – not even the Gates of Hell will prevail.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The evil that befell the Church from the Spirit of Vatican II is not a loss of perspective and even Paul VI was quick to note that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church through some fissure. As to why you say that such a perspective only makes sense when set against a ‘golden age’ will have to be explained as it is neither apparent nor necessarily true.
As for praying a rosary during Mass was actually lauded by certain Popes and theologians . . . nothing wrong with prayerfully meditating upon the passion of Christ especially from the point of the offertory through the sacrifice on the altar. As to talking (do you think there was more talking then than now?) the only explanation I can think of is parents disciplining their many children who sometimes took up an entire pew. And the silent parts of the Mass made it very clear that the priest was the intercessor as he mediated for the people facing Christ or the Orient while the Mass was said. Yes your friends may have told you these things but did they even bother to understand the Mass and why they did that which they did. There are many books on the subject if you would like to discover the depth of the ritual.
Nobody thought that Mass (on its own) would get you to Heaven but the Truths taught in the Mass and lived by the people were demonstrated and taught by the prayers, the obedience and the solemnity given in the worship of the One True God. We did not have to be busy doing the things the priest was called to do, we merely went to Mass to pray both the public prayers and privately commune with God. It is the Mass of ages and the Mass of our most beloved saints and it pains me to hear moderns denigrate that which is holy and raised generations of faithful Catholics . . . filling the pews on Sundays, Holy days, weekdays and drawing them back for Benedictions and Litanies and other feasts and processions.
Not sure about Jean Vanier though I know that he is a great humanitarian. As for the 2 Popes it is really too early to place them in the ranks of many of our other saints. It seems to me we are a little quick to want to beatify any Pope involved in VII and to be quite honest it has an aura of political manipulation not to mention that since JPII we have greatly reduced both the time and the conditions for beatifications and canonizations. Time will tell.
You do not see the Church almost at the brink of extinction to Islam and its miraculous victories that purged this scourge from any serious onslaught on the faith until perhaps now? And do you not see that after the lost battle against the Protestant schism that we more than regained the numbers lost to their faiths by Our Lady of Guadalupe? We have had times like in Arianism where all hope seemed lost but God always raised those who once again pumped air into the lungs of the Church and helped it flourish after such things; St. Benedict and then St. Bernard spread their monasteries throughout all of Europe. Yes God delivers on His promises but it does not guarantee how long it will be before we produce our Saints and Popes who will do the same once again; for God always uses us to work His Will through. I am simply saying that we seem to be in a period where we seem to be experiencing a famine of sorts, replete with a hierarchy that has even suggested changes to de fide teachings and ignore the moral teachings of 2000 years of Christian teaching. It will fail but during my lifetime I am not exactly sitting here thinking that this is going to end soon. I pray it will but it will take the raising of some saints that will actually effect the changes of the hearts and minds of those who are leading us to ruin.
LikeLike
Just a quick addendum to what I stated above concerning your criticisms or perhaps your older friends criticisms of the ancient Mass.
ROSARY AT MASS – a few examples from previous Popes:
“Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, 11/20/1947, n. 108)
“Doubt V – The same Decree [of Leo XIII issued on August 20, 1885] rules that Rosary must be recited with the Litanies among the prayers carried out by the faithful. We ask whether these words should be understood as the Rosary to be said at the same time of the celebration of the Mass; or that the Mass should be celebrated before the recitation of the Rosary and Litanies as usually happens in the Palentina Diocese.
“Answer: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second.” (Original in Latin here, pp. 47-48 )
As such, this decree unambiguously stated affirmative: the Rosary is to be prayed during the same time as the celebration of the Mass.
This endorsement by Leo XIII and its confirmation by the Congregation of Rites definitively established the Rosary as a legitimate accompaniment to the Mass. Several indulgences were granted to its recitation, and the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed this position again in 1887.
THE THREE TONES OR VOICES IN THE TRADITIONAL MASS:
In the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass (Usus Antiquor), the priest uses three tones of voice (low, medium, and high). The low voice is used, for example, during the prayers surrounding the Consecration and the Consecration itself, as the priest quietly prays the words of consecration, in which the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The medium voice is used by the priest at the altar to be heard the sacred ministers and servers who are near the altar and the high voice is employed to give the texts of the Mass that are heard by all.
It is, therefore, well to follow along in the hand-missal so that one might meditate upon the prayers of the Mass. The silence experienced during the Canons of the Mass is a hushed awe in which the faithful render thanksgiving unto the Father for the mystery of Christ’s supreme sacrifice made present again on the altar. When a newcomer attends the Usus Antiquor according to the 1962 Missale Romanum for the first time, they are, moreover, surprised that the most important part of the Mass is accomplished in silence. Through the silence of Mass, we enter into a contemplative and sacred silence, over which the Holy Ghost is hovering. This anointed silence in the Traditional Latin Mass is a timeless silence pointing to eternity.
BTW: these are the prayers that emphasize the ‘ministry’ of the priest and not the participation or prayers of the people. Even the Novus Ordo is ‘supposed’ to use the silent voice for some parts; though few do. But it is in the Rubrics only now everything is a performance rather than the ministry of the priest as our intercessor with God at Mass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Dave, good points.
LikeLiked by 1 person