2010 RE Congress

[ChurchTorch]

It is just sad and disgusting that there are those on this thread that think that this sort of Mass is acceptable. It goes to show you just how uncatechised many Catholics are about the liturgy that they have the gall to defend such appalling liturgies. “Sacred” means “set apart exclusively for God”, so if something is “in touch” with a local culture or society, then it has been profaned, desanctfied; it is sacrilege and all to common post-VII. Head over to Fr. Z’s blog for more about this.

Your comments make me wonder why you believe your personal opinion (or even fr. z’s) trumps other’s including a handful of bishops? Because you believe your interpretation of Church documents to somehow be more correct than their own?

 

[Revs96]

ChurchTorch, have you nothing better to do with your life than to criticize everyone’s comments on this thread? Have you not listened to anything we have said? Or is your heart still hardened? Can you not see the difference between the reverent Masses we have been referencing and this farce in LA?

 

[jmj603]

You are aware that your opinion is just that, your opinion, right?

Sacrilege is when you PROFANE a SACRED PERSON, PLACE or OBJECT.

Clearly profane elements have been introduced into the RE Mass. It’s not an opinion, it’s an observation.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I’m a little confused with the thread response, I am currently watching the link. I see lots of singing and dancing. However, the prayer before the dismissal seems normal. The dismissal was before the singing and dancing.

In this particular youtube clip, the music is after the dismissal. Is there still a problem?

Mass needs to be reverent. However, how is this Mass explicitly irreverent? I didn’t here hand clapping and the alter was empty during the dancing. The singing and dancing was after the dismissal. The location was a stadium itself, so it doesn’t seem reasonable to expect opportunities for silent prayers because thousands of people getting out of their stadium seats and shuffling across concrete would already ensure the stadium is noisy. I do not know Spanish so I do not know if they are singing anything inappropriate.

So I guess my question: is all the negative reaction on the thread unfounded or am I missing something big.

This Mass certainly wasn’t my cup of tea but a lot of “abuses” people here claim do not exist in reality. The bottom line is some have trouble saying “this is not to my liking, I prefer the Mass to be celebrated in a more traditional manner.” Instead (like the CCR thread) they pass judgment on that which they do not like and it kills their credibility.

 

[ChurchTorch]

ChurchTorch, have you nothing better to do with your life than to criticize everyone’s comments on this thread? Have you not listened to anything we have said? Or is your heart still hardened? Can you not see the difference between the reverent Masses we have been referencing and this farce in LA?

Talk about hardened hearts!! Just look at some of the judgments of others on these threads! Look at the CCR thread!

What I see are people judging that which they personally dislike as being “abusive” or “illicit” when in reality they just don’t prefer it. I’m beginning to understand why so many on this thread have so much trouble being taken seriously when it comes to the liturgy in their own parishes!

I’d stop listening to your “concerns” too if you passed judgment (w/o authority) on everything you personally did not prefer.

 

[Revs96]

For the last time, this is sacrilege, which has been clearly established by various posters several times by now. You are spreading the heresy of relativism: the idea that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another. The Divine Law, from which we get the Natural Law, which is impressed on our hearts by the very fact that we are human, says that God is to be treated with reverence, which Card. Mahoney & Co. lack, as we have established. Just because they are bishops does not make them right, Many bishops in the early church supported heresy, as did mid-20th century bishops (ring a bell anyone?). Many medieval bishops were notoriously corrupt. But you insist in yelling and laughing like a small child, all the while attacking the rest of us. Mods, feel free to lock this thread, it ran out of potential long ago and is now a childish debate.

 

[At_Trent]

I only watched the video linked to in the OP.

I’m no fan of the things that happen in that Cathedral, but as far as that particular video, it shows what happened after the Mass was over, so I saw no liturgical abuse. The dancing and music is no more disturbing than what I encounter after a reverent OF Mass at some parishes locally, especially on Sundays.

I’m talking about how the people erupt into a roar of small talk after the Mass. Am I at a indoor flea market ? A bingo hall or a church picnic ? How swiftly do those who received Communion minutes prior forget it as soon as the priest has left the Sanctuary, making it nearly impossible to offer prayers of thanksgiving after Mass, or other prayers.

Dancing frantically, or a roaring eruption of chit chat. There is no difference. I’ve even seen it after Mass in a independent trad chapel in Indiana

 

[Phemie]

I thought it pretty wonderful and wish we had more masses like that.

It was full of abuses:

1. Glass chalice & regular plate: forbidden
2. Liturgical dancing: forbidden
3. Consecration of the wine in carafes with subsequent pouring of the Precious Blood: forbidden

**Other questionable happenings: **
Processing (dancing?) the Gospel Book and then proclaiming the Gospel from a binder?

Dismissing candidates? They are baptized and should be staying for the Liturgy of the Eucharist – even more so if they are already Catholics simply seeking to complete their initiation. Shouldn’t an RE conference model the ideal?

Everyone extending their hands over the candidates and elect.

Font filled with rocks, no water evident although the water is not to be removed until the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

Deacons’ wives walking with their husbands in the entrance procession.

Flowers during Lent (this wasn’t Laetare Sunday, it was the 5th Sunday).

Offering Communion under both species to such a large gathering. (RS 102)

 

[Phemie]

For starters, the sacred vessels were glass and wicker.

To be fair, the wicker baskets were used to carry a large number of ciboria. That’s no different from bringing them in on trays.

The problem was that the ciboria were made of glass.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It was full of abuses:
Offering Communion under both species to such a large gathering. (RS 102)

I hated the spectacle that I saw on youtube, but I wasn’t aware that both species cannot be offered to a “large” gathering. Could you elaborate (if you know) on how large is “large,” and why that would be forbidden?

(I far prefer both species, but that’s just me, I realize.)

 

[Revs96]

I hated the spectacle that I saw on youtube, but I wasn’t aware that both species cannot be offered to a “large” gathering. Could you elaborate (if you know) on how large is “large,” and why that would be forbidden?

(I far prefer both species, but that’s just me, I realize.)

Well, unless you use intinction, it would be very impractical. I don’t know beyond that.

 

[malphono]

I hated the spectacle that I saw on youtube, but I wasn’t aware that both species cannot be offered to a “large” gathering. Could you elaborate (if you know) on how large is “large,” and why that would be forbidden?

(I far prefer both species, but that’s just me, I realize.)

From Redemptionis Sacramentum

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

 

[Phemie]

I hated the spectacle that I saw on youtube, but I wasn’t aware that both species cannot be offered to a “large” gathering. Could you elaborate (if you know) on how large is “large,” and why that would be forbidden?

(I far prefer both species, but that’s just me, I realize.)

To be fair, I listed that as ‘problematic’ not abuse. But RS 102 is clear:

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

 

[bkovacs]

This Mass certainly wasn’t my cup of tea but a lot of “abuses” people here claim do not exist in reality. The bottom line is some have trouble saying “this is not to my liking, I prefer the Mass to be celebrated in a more traditional manner.” Instead (like the CCR thread) they pass judgment on that which they do not like and it kills their credibility.

Obviously ChurchTorch doesn’t know a thing about the Roman Catholic Church, it’s history, or it’s traditions. ChurchTorch’s Roman Catholic Church started after Vatican 2. Enough Said.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Obviously ChurchTorch doesn’t know a thing about the Roman Catholic Church, it’s history, or it’s traditions. ChurchTorch’s Roman Catholic Church started after Vatican 2. Enough Said.

Go ahead and resort to the ad hominem attack. I expect it in this forum. Your pronouncements are again just your opinions. It’s sad that you offer them as fact when they clearly are not.

What I find remarkable is the that self-professed “traditionalists” spent the time and energy to watch and then discuss this Mass. You had to go looking for something to denigrate? *That’s just terrible.
*

The high level of ignorance and absolute lack of tolerance exhibited on this and the CCR thread by “traditionalists” SHOULD BE CALLED TO MIND should anyone actually denigrate the Mass as traditionalists prefer it to be celebrated. “Enough Said.” (sic) :yup:

 

[ChurchTorch]

It was full of abuses:

1. Glass chalice & regular plate: forbidden
2. Liturgical dancing: forbidden
3. Consecration of the wine in carafes with subsequent pouring of the Precious Blood: forbidden

**Other questionable happenings: **
Processing (dancing?) the Gospel Book and then proclaiming the Gospel from a binder?

Dismissing candidates? They are baptized and should be staying for the Liturgy of the Eucharist – even more so if they are already Catholics simply seeking to complete their initiation. Shouldn’t an RE conference model the ideal?

Everyone extending their hands over the candidates and elect.

Font filled with rocks, no water evident although the water is not to be removed until the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

Deacons’ wives walking with their husbands in the entrance procession.

Flowers during Lent (this wasn’t Laetare Sunday, it was the 5th Sunday).

Offering Communion under both species to such a large gathering. (RS 102)

Nothing that you list are things the Cardinal cannot dispense. Yes, I know you are not aware of that nor are others aware of that fact but it’s the truth. Yes we’ve all been treated to snippets of the GIRM, RS, CoCL and other documents replete with the interpretations of laypersons and maybe even “Fr. Z” but the Church in the form of the Cardinal is in charge of and responsible for the Archdiocese. Not you nor Fr. Z. Some here need to learn where the authority rests in the Church. It would save them a huge amount of frustration.

Take the pouring of the Precious Blood. The Cardinal formally allowed the practice to continue because he has the authority to do so. the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm Whether he is “right” to do that or whether it’s a good idea or not is not what I said. I said he has the authority to do so no matter what the lay liturgical technicians surmise from their personal interpretations of Church documents.

 

[At_Trent]

For the next hour or so, one can see a reverent liturgy here
64.247.253.34/view/index.shtml

 

[Phemie]

Nothing that you list are things the Cardinal cannot dispense. Yes, I know you are not aware of that nor are others aware of that fact but it’s the truth. Yes we’ve all been treated to snippets of the GIRM, RS, CoCL and other documents replete with the interpretations of laypersons and maybe even “Fr. Z” but the Church in the form of the Cardinal is in charge of and responsible for the Archdiocese. Not you nor Fr. Z. Some here need to learn where the authority rests in the Church. It would save them a huge amount of frustration.

Take the pouring of the Precious Blood. The Cardinal formally allowed the practice to continue because he has the authority to do so. the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm Whether he is “right” to do that or whether it’s a good idea or not is not what I said. I said he has the authority to do so no matter what the lay liturgical technicians surmise from their personal interpretations of Church documents.

He only has the right to do things that are within his competence and that is dictated by the documents:

Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.
§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.
§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

He doesn’t get to define the “limits of his competence”, they are defined by the liturgical books and the documents of the Church.

Considering that his book on the Mass and the video that accompany it are big on consecration in the flagon and pouring, he has a vested interest in not stopping the practice even if the Church dictates otherwise.

 

[Revs96]

OK everyone, there is no use in paying any attention to ChurchTorch, as he is just trolling this thread bullying other posters into tolerating his own personal opinion, which we have proven time and again to be contrary to Church teaching and law. He does nothing but insult you if you speak to him and he reduces any mature discussion we try to have into toddler-like ranting, so ignore him.

He will insult me in 3…2…1…

 

[At_Trent]

We must pray for those who disrupt our discussions. He/she has angered me too at times, but charity trumps all. Bearing crosses like these are not hard compared to the weight of the Cross carried by Our Savior.

Let not the temptations to succumb to anger drag our minds from this Holy Week of our Faith.