Can’t attend Traditional Mass

[OraLabora]

The faithful, in any case, do not hold “perfectly pointless” views. They have every right to question their pastor and to appeal to higher authorities when they see abuses.

I find it odd that traditionalists feel so free to criticize their clergy. In the times that traditionalists are nostalgic for, nobody would have had the gumption to challenge their clergy. And there certainly were abuses back in the day. Quite ironic in fact.

 

[KMG]

No nostalgia here. Just pointing out that Don Ruggero’s comments about the “pointless” views of the laity were inappropriate.

 

[OraLabora]

I would think it’s more than just abilities, but number of communicants as well. I’ve rarely been to a parish Mass where there was more than one priest celebrating. Most don’t even have a deacon. It makes it easy to understand why 1) communion is under one species only and 2) there are EMHCs. Sometimes where our schola sings, we are in the choir loft which is a long trek, so inevitably it’s the EMHC that comes to us. If the choir is in the sanctuary then often it is the priest.

I’ve also never (not that it never happens, but my experience only) seen the priest not giving communion. He is rather being assisted in the task: priest and one EMHC in the centre aisle, one EMHC each in the side aisles, and maybe one to go upstairs if needed.

To save time? Perhaps, but that too is legit. He may have to race off to another church to celebrate another Mass. I remember going to Mass once at one of the churches in our pastoral unit, and being passed on the way by the priest going like a bat out of purgatory so he could get there in time, vest, greet the parishioners, etc. He had just been celebrating another Mass at a town 20 km away.

There are just so many valid reasons that are the priest’s, and the priest’s alone, that I question why the laity need to get involved in the nitty gritty of “why are there so many EMHCs?”.

Moreover the Vatican is a l-o-n-g way away. Not only do I think they haven’t really the time to examine all these cases, they are also not very well placed to understand all the nuances in a particular place.

Admittedly I don’t face this issue because I go to Mass at a Benedictine abbey where there are 15 priest monks; though only a handful of the able-bodied ones give communion; it’s an elderly community. But when I do attend Mass in a parish, I’m just grateful that there is a priest and a Eucharist. Not all parts of the world share that privilege.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure I understand your question. The number of non-transitional deacons were not that many pre-Vatican II.

Good question on permanent subdeacons.

 

[commenter]

I’m not sure I understand your question. The number of non-transitional deacons were not that many pre-Vatican II.

Did the transitional deacons in, say 1960, read the gospel? I know it now is the rule that deacons always read the gospel if there is a deacon, but I wonder if deacons always read the gospel before, especially if a bishop was on the altar. A deacon is a deacon is a deacon, in terms of the sacrament. Was that rule in effect in 1960?

Regarding subdeacons, if subdeacons serve a role in the liturgy, I wonder if there are permanent subdeacons in EF parishes or religious orders. Altar boys can remain indefinitely, even though there usually is no thought of Holy Orders.

 

[ProVobis]

In 1960, I would think so. Not necessarily from the pulpit though.

 

[Augustinian]

I would quite happy to enumerate the truly gruesomeness that a priest – and a diocesan bishop – encounter from such people.

Gruesome? Really? I can understand disconcerting, objectionable, disagreeable or obnoxious. But “gruesome” is usually reserved for things like the crime of Jeffrey Dahmer, and not just arguments, no matter how outrageous or out of place

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Gruesome? Really? I can understand disconcerting, objectionable, disagreeable or obnoxious. But “gruesome” is usually reserved for things like the crime of Jeffrey Dahmer, and not just arguments, no matter how outrageous or out of place

It was the word the Bishop used when he expelled them from the church in which they had been given hospitality.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am not sure why it is so hard to comprehend that there are always things going on that the laity knows nothing about.

It is hard to comprehend if one is expecting the attitude that you display…but that is what is missing in other posters, who do not have your approach.

When one is reading a document from the Holy See, the way in which the clauses are analysed varies radically – and it has to be contextualised to other realities, which of course the Holy See is quite aware of when the documents are promulgated.

A prime example of what can happen occurred to me during what was my last trip through the United States, several years ago. I found my travel interrupted as I traveling from one city to another with a change in an intervening city – where an alternate flight was not available. By good fortune, I knew a family who now lived in that city and offered me hospitality. I said my one regret was that I was supposed to offer Mass at the end of the journey, as that was what had been arranged – and the traveling Mass kit that I otherwise had with me was in the checked luggage that was not going to be reunited with me until the next day.

As it happened, their parish had an evening Mass and so off we set so that I could concelebrate. However, this was after the changes enacted in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century – and the Bishop of that diocese had taken the opportunity to enact particular law for his diocese that precluded a cleric from functioning in any public capacity, in any church of his diocese, without being cleared in advance by the chancery through submitted and verified documentation. The parish priest was quite upset when he found out where I was from…but the Bishop was away and the Vicar General could not be found via the phone – and there was nothing for me to do on my end, in any event, with it being after midnight back home.

Also — if there are perfectly capable ordained ministers there, they should be enlisted to distribute communion BEFORE any laypeople are called.

Now, I was ABLE to distribute Communion…in fact I was quite willing and glad to do so. But what the Bishop had enacted had the effect of rendering the instruction from the Holy See incapable of being implemented, in this case. I stayed and we attended the Mass…and, as it happened, as a Priest I received Communion from the Extraordinary Minister.

That illustrates one small bit of the problem when lay people, who have not had benefit of the education in theology and canon law that a priest has – let alone going on to teach those subjects – think that they can simply read words on a page from the Holy See and thereby conceive that they could attempt to apply the text. They can’t.

 

[KMG]

I’ve read enough of his posts to be able to see that they all too quickly devolve into, “You’re a layperson and your views don’t interest me at all because you are not educated enough/old enough to “dare” (a verb he likes very much) to question anything…your job is to remain silent and obey.”

I would suggest that in the spirit of respectful dialogue and helpful exchange, that sort of attitude is most unhelpful.

 

[commenter]

The faithful, in any case, do not hold “perfectly pointless” views. They have every right to question their pastor and to appeal to higher authorities when they see abuses.

Canon Law supports this right. It should be done only after attempting to work it out with the person involved. It should be done regretfully, not arrogantly, only as a last resort. I have appealed abuses, such as a bad sex ed program in a parish school.

Please also note that the attitude of “you may not question your priest” is exactly one of the main reasons why in the USA the scandal of clerical sexual abuse became as serious a nightmare as it did.

This is the doctrine of the secular media. When did you start trusting them?
I was a social worker, specifically related to sexual abuse at that time. There was an explosion of sexual allegations against all kinds of public schools, secular social agencies, professionals of all kinds, the vast majority of complaints of institutional cover ups, and abuse, unrelated to the Catholic Church. (Not to minimize our own scandal, just pointing out the current scandal of Catholics repeating the dogma of the NY Times.)

 

[commenter]

I’ve read enough of his posts to be able to see that they all too quickly devolve into, “You’re a layperson and your views don’t interest me at all because you are not educated enough/old enough to “dare” (a verb he likes very much) to question anything…your job is to remain silent and obey.”

I would suggest that in the spirit of respectful dialogue and helpful exchange, that sort of attitude is most unhelpful.

I am a conservative, and sometimes disagree with Don Ruggero’s opinions, which are more liberal than mine. But on some subjects he has far more training than I have. I can, like you, pull up some data on a topic, but I don’t know if what I pulled up is the most recent, most relevant, most authoritative data available.

“Dialogue” is the secular media’s fav buzzword nowadays. Starting in the late 1960s people on the Left constantly wanted to “dialogue” every doctrine and practice in the Church, as if the Magisterium and hierarchy did not exist. But now I am seeing it coming from the religious Right, which puzzles me.

We live in an anti-religious-authority climate today, driven by the internet.

 

[exnihilo]

We live in an anti-religious-authority climate today, driven by the internet.

I think we live in an anti religious authority society driven primarily by radical individualism which started long before the Internet. This isn’t something new to our time. The Reformation was based on this.

 

[Augustinian]

I think we live in an anti religious authority society driven primarily by radical individualism which started long before the Internet. This isn’t something new to our time. The Reformation was based on this.

Anti-clericalism is nothing new, and it rises and falls. Individualism plays a part, but I think certain abuses like the sex scandals have caused distrust between the faithful and the clergy.

 

[commenter]

exnihilo:

I think we live in an anti religious authority society driven primarily by radical individualism which started long before the Internet. This isn’t something new to our time. The Reformation was based on this.

Anti-clericalism is nothing new, and it rises and falls. Individualism plays a part, but I think certain abuses like the sex scandals have caused distrust between the faithful and the clergy.

Keep in mind far, far more laity have been accused of child abuse than priests (though the priest scandal is bad enough).

We need to keep things in perspective. On most measures - drugs, alcohol, mental health - laity are much more likely on a percentage basis to have problems. The dropout rate from marriage, Catholic marriage or marriage in general - is much, much higher than the dropout rate from the priesthood.

One can argue whether priests have more reason to distrust laity, than the reverse…but in any event, it is media coverage that fuels the distrust.

 

[KMG]

The issue isn’t simply how many priests abused children vs. how many laity.

In far too many locales there was a pattern of covering up abuse and transferring priests in a perverse shell game that is also part of the scandal.

 

[Augustinian]

Keep in mind far, far more laity have been accused of child abuse than priests (though the priest scandal is bad enough).

That’s certainly true, but perception is reality when we are talking about the people trusting the clergy.

 

[commenter]

the Supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and therefore the opinions of the laity MUST be considered. I mean, the Church should do what she knows to be the best for her people.
[/quote]
One can argue that the engineer MUST consider the opinions of non-engineers when designing a bridge. The pilot MUST consider the opinions of the passengers on a plane. But after a point, there should be some recognition of differential degree of authority and expertise.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

Keep in mind far, far more laity have been accused of child abuse than priests (though the priest scandal is bad enough).

That’s certainly true, but perception is reality when we are talking about the people trusting the clergy.

Most people today build their perception on the media, which is a highly untrustworthy source. Reality is still reality, at least away from the snowflake colleges. For some in academia, or the New Age religion, we build our own reality, the only reality that is really important.

This has nothing to do with Christianity of course, even though it has been creeping into religious circles.

 

[OraLabora]

One can argue that the engineer MUST consider the opinions of non-engineers when designing a bridge. The pilot MUST consider the opinions of the passengers on a plane. But after a point, there should be some recognition of differential degree of authority and expertise.

Up to a point. When designing a bridge, non-engineers might get to decide how many lanes it has, whether it has provisions for a transit lane, etc. Then the engineers get onto it, and at that point the “laity” can’t really say much except maybe to complain about the cost and the schedule.

I am or was a pilot (private, not commercial) for many years. A passenger may get to direct the destination, but if the weather there is below minimums or the aircraft’s minimum equipment list is not met (the minimum equipment legally required to complete the flight) then the pilot-in-command must legally enforce his authority. Alas too many have pressed on too far with tragic results.

So the laity can of course have some say in things liturgical, within the boundaries of licit options allowed by the rubrics and/or competent authority such as musical choices. However there are some areas outside those boundaries. On the question of EMHCs, the priest is not obliged to share confidential information about his health status, nor about details about arrangements with his bishop for example for having too many Masses to celebrate in a day. The laity can certainly ask, but in this particular case, must be satisfied with general answers such as “health reasons” or “the bishop and I have agreed on this”. Or even no answer at all.