Loading ...
In today’s Wall Street Journal two traditionalists — friends of mine, actually — describe the harrowing tale of their ultimately successful attempt to have a Tridentine Nuptial Mass. The article is fun and gets in some good shots. The Wymans may have to think twice about walking near a NYC chancery at night after this passage:
Thus the greater New York metropolitan area is currently permitted only a handful of weekly celebrations of the Tridentine Mass. Unfortunately, finding a parish for our own nuptial Mass was a painful process. A priest at one such parish in Manhattan told us that the rector and his parish council were not interested in having more old Masses celebrated there. A parochial vicar in Long Island nearly chortled at the suggestion that any additional Tridentine Masses would be allowed in the diocese that he serves. The secretary of Edward Cardinal Egan, the Archbishop of New York, responded to our impassioned plea by offering us the ugliest church in the borough.
I’ve got to wonder, though, about this line: There may have been wisdom in the church’s attempt to “update” the Mass. What were they thinking? I can just hope this was a concession to some WSJ editorial staffer …
In any event, well done!
Oh I think I’ve heard of those Wymans—real trouble-makers from what I understand.
Rabble-rousers…
(Of course, my heart was gladdened they invited me to rouse the rabble with them.)
Not too shabby, that piece. I just want to know why he can’t seem to make up his mind on how to refer to the “Mass of All Time” - then again, as long as he doesn’t use “classical”, I’m happy.
Another far less informed article on things Trad in NYC here.
Also from the article…
“In 1988, a sympathetic Pope John Paul II asked that bishops provide ‘wide and generous’ access to the traditional liturgy. But stingy clerics, who regard devotees of the Old Mass as retrograde, often ignored this request, a form of defiance that the current pope is obviously well aware and determined to correct.”
I have a friend in the St. Joseph’s Seminary(Dunwoodie) for the Archdiocese of New York. He is extremely positive about the Tridentine Rite. I have gone to many Tridentine masses with him and every time he comments on the reverence and the beauty of the mass. He is very positive about the old mass and the community that often surrounds it. I think the above quote is true when it mentions “stingy clerics” because many of the young priests in the regular diocesan seminaries that I know are very open to the use of the Old Mass. (At least St. Paul, MN and Dunwoodie NY). In addition Most of the newly ordained priests in St. Paul, MN do not oppose a broader use of the Traditional Latin Mass.
I think there is hope in the younger generation of priest. Maybe you won’t have to think twice about walking near a NYC chancery at night in a few years.
Thanks for the mention, Ambrosius!
We’re pretty happy about the whole thing — and yes, that was a phrase suggested by the WSJ people.
Iacobus: what would you have had us do?
Now for a non-whack-job traditionalist comment:
NYC is all screwed up in my opinion (no offense to the good souls there); but you’re probably viewed *everywhere* as crazy with a letter to the editor like that.
It was good the “Wyman’s” take it as a joke to some degree instead of being too serious or widesweeping, perhaps similar to the posts on this blog by Ambrosius “Williamson”; otherwise it would merit a response from a “faithful” Catholic like myself…haha.
However, the apparent lack of cooperation in obtaining the traditional wedding/Mass must have been a source of suffering to some extent; but you were fortunate to get the marriage of your life done in such a manner.
A double-ring ceromony (as per your picture) is NOT traditional.
But of course it is Traditional — it is not only what is explicitly mentioned in the Rituale which is Traditional… This kind of presentation of the facts darkened the beauty of the Traditional rites in the minds of many good Catholics.
“If, however, in any provinces, other laudable customs and ceremonies are in use besides the foregoing in the celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony, the holy Council of Trent desires that they should be retained” (see Decree on the Reformation of Marriage)
“Double-ring ceremonies” were customary throughout Catholic Europe, in many different regions…
New Catholic,
I have the Rituale to back up my statement. Please back up yours that “double-ring ceremonies” were customary throughout Catholic Europe, in many different regions…
Neo Catholic, according to the below, the double-ring ceremony was a jewelry industry created “tradition.” It was also fueled by egalitarianism and feminism. The double-ring ceremony appears to have its advent along with contraception and women’s suffrage (circa 1920’s). Of course you may want to argue that traditionalism isn’t against feminism or woman’s suffrage–that it “darkens the beauty” of tradition”–but argue with the likes of GKC not me.
__________________________
From:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_36/ai_104635088
A “Real Man’s Ring”: Gender and the Invention of Tradition - American Double Ring Ceremony, 1920s Male Engagement Ring
Journal of Social History, Summer, 2003 by Vicki Howard
In 1944, a Catholic priest turned to the American Ecclesiastical Review for advice on whether the “double ring” marriage ceremony was permitted. If it was allowed, he asked, “is the prayer for the blessing of the ring, as found in the Ritual, said in the plural number, and do groom and bride successively place a blessed ring each on the finger of the other, saying the accustomed words, ‘With this ring, etc.?’” Among Catholics and others prior to World War Two, most marriage vows took place with one wedding band. The Roman Ritual called only for the blessing of the bride’s ring. The Catholic journal concluded that as the groom’s ring was a matter of custom and not legislation, “it is custom which will govern the manner in which it is to be carried out.” In 1951, the issue was taken up again, only now the journal