Clerical narcissism and lent

  • Thread starter Thread starter christofirst
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christofirst

Guest
Here is an article by Geoege Weigel about the new translation and impromptu priests

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/02/clerical-narcissism-and-lent

I always wonder if I’m being just a little OCD when I get frustrated over our good and holy priests (I really mean that!) inserting mini-homilies and commentary throughout the Mass. I know I’m not the only one who is irked by this. (sorry if this has already been posted)
 
When we first started with the new missal, and then again around Christmas when the Christmas-Easter crowd was about, our priest made a couple comments about it during Mass, but nothing that added to or took away from the actual text. They were more along the lines of explaining the changes (when it first came out), or informing people that there had been changes. The only other really notable time he did something like this was the first morning he decided to do certain parts by heart instead of reading them. I think it was during the Nicene Creed. The congregation did great, but he said all the wrong words out of habit, and made a joke about it after. He hasn’t tried doing it by heart since, lol.
 
Gordon_Sims said:
When we first started with the new missal, and then again around Christmas when the Christmas-Easter crowd was about, our priest made a couple comments about it during Mass, but nothing that added to or took away from the actual text. They were more along the lines of explaining the changes (when it first came out), or informing people that there had been changes. The only other really notable time he did something like this was the first morning he decided to do certain parts by heart instead of reading them. I think it was during the Nicene Creed. The congregation did great, but he said all the wrong words out of habit, and made a joke about it after. He hasn’t tried doing it by heart since, lol.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly our priests have had the greater burden in learning/sticking to the new revision. I still slip with the old response ocassionally when I “zone out” at Mass (yes, it happens), and I have not yet fully memorized the Creed.
Something that used to happen out here that really bugged me, was when the reader read some prepared synopsis of the first and second readings before proceding with the actual readings. Like some kind of pre-homily. The priest had to approve this, since he was sitting right there. Was this ever officially approved? Thankfully, I no longer see this happening.
 
I thought the article was rather judgmental and uncharitable. Though I had to lol at:
Not only has there been no visible distress over “consubstantial”…
Click to expand...
Yes, people no longer complain. Now they just roll their eyes and stopped caring. Apparently, unlike writers, most people learn to let things go after a while.

As for people no longer mixing up the Mass responses, I guess George Weigel hasn’t been to the average funeral or wedding lately.
 
I agreed with Weigel’s statement that, although the term stings (clerical narcissism), there’s something to it.
 
Weigel talks about attending Mass in a number of cities, but in point of fact cites only a single instance of a priest “rearranging” or otherwise ad-libbing. I wonder if there’s such a thing as “author narcissism.” We’re all still in an adjustment period, no one more so than our priests, who after all had so many more changes to adapt to. I wonder if Weigel had a column deadline and needed a topic. Let’s give our priests a break.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
I thought the article was rather judgmental and uncharitable. Though I had to lol at:

Yes, people no longer complain. Now they just roll their eyes and stopped caring. Apparently, unlike writers, most people learn to let things go after a while.

As for people no longer mixing up the Mass responses, I guess George Weigel hasn’t been to the average funeral or wedding lately.
Click to expand...
Or Ash Wednesday, this past week … 🙂

(It was nice to see them all back! I hope they choose to come more regularly.)
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Weigel talks about attending Mass in a number of cities, but in point of fact cites only a single instance of a priest “rearranging” or otherwise ad-libbing. I wonder if there’s such a thing as “author narcissism.” We’re all still in an adjustment period, no one more so than our priests, who after all had so many more changes to adapt to. I wonder if Weigel had a column deadline and needed a topic. Let’s give our priests a break.
Click to expand...
That’sthe sense I got. I feel that way occasionally about his articles. Kinda like being “snarky” to be interesting. I agree that we should give our priests the benefit of the doubt and continue to pray for them.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Weigel talks about attending Mass in a number of cities, but in point of fact cites only a single instance of a priest “rearranging” or otherwise ad-libbing…
Click to expand...
Yes, apparently if you are in front of a crowd and can’t find the right page be sure not to make a joke about it if George Weigel is there. He doesn’t like that.
 
Lets just LOL the whole article. Usually I like George Weigel’s writings but this time I think he missed the mark. I am wondering he would have approved of the fact that our Archbishop made a joke or two at the first Mass of the new translation.
 
It seems that the author could have been more charitable. I know our priest is trying as hard as he can…but it is an awful lot to throw at them. We have the easy part…I go to Mass almost every day and I will still slip up here and there. Can’t we give our priests a break? Or are they not allowed to be human?
 
I do, in all honesty, have compassion for priests who have prayed the lame duck translation for a long time. I really do. But then I must ask, is it really very hard to pray the right thing if he keeps his eyes glued on the Missal the whole time for every prayer? I realize that this was perhaps not the practice in years past due to whatever reasons, but as long as priests keep their eyes on the pages, very little mistakes can be made.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I do, in all honesty, have compassion for priests who have prayed the lame duck translation for a long time. I really do. But then I must ask, is it really very hard to pray the right thing if he keeps his eyes glued on the Missal the whole time for every prayer? I realize that this was perhaps not the practice in years past due to whatever reasons, but as long as priests keep their eyes on the pages, very little mistakes can be made.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…I thinking that having your hands up in the air in prayer and trying to keep your eye on the page…you might possibly end up missing something or skipping a line. I know of no one who is perfect at that…especially if your eyes are tired from attending to the parish and it’s parishioners. That’s a lot of reading to get one hundred percent perfect… And when you had the old translation memorized, you’re eyes can play tricks on you…just saying.

It’s easy for us to sit here and say we could do this and that…but until we have walked in their shoes (which I could never do)…I think we could afford them a little charity…no?
 
YoungTradCath said:
I do, in all honesty, have compassion for priests who have prayed the lame duck translation for a long time. I really do. But then I must ask, is it really very hard to pray the right thing if he keeps his eyes glued on the Missal the whole time for every prayer? I realize that this was perhaps not the practice in years past due to whatever reasons, but as long as priests keep their eyes on the pages, very little mistakes can be made.
Click to expand...
To be fair, unlike most of the rest of us who spent the last 30-40 years hearing and saying the same words usually no more than once a week, the priests were saying the words sometimes multiple times each day as often as 6 times per week for however long they’ve been priests. I’m sure they had their own patterns and rhythms down and seldom had to really follow along with the old translation because it was far more ingrained for them than it was for any of us. I’d imagine that with the new missal, many of the priests are eager to get that same familiarity, if for no other reason than so they can settle back into their established rhythms while saying Mass. I’d guess that at least in a few of these situations where priests are making mistakes, it has something to do with a desire to be able to say these parts by heart again. I don’t think the occasional misstep is so distracting that it should be ruining Mass for anybody.
 
christofirst said:
Here is an article by Geoege Weigel about the new translation and impromptu priests

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/02/clerical-narcissism-and-lent

I always wonder if I’m being just a little OCD when I get frustrated over our good and holy priests (I really mean that!) inserting mini-homilies and commentary throughout the Mass. I know I’m not the only one who is irked by this. (sorry if this has already been posted)
Click to expand...
I stopped reading at this part…

One implicit purpose of the new translations, with their deliberate recovery of a sacral vocabulary and their adoption of a more formal literary rhythm, was to discipline the tendency of priests to turn the Mass into an expression of the celebrant’s personality.
I’m sorry… where has the church ever said any such thing? I call Mr. Weigel a liar if he can provide no official source for this outrageous claim.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I do, in all honesty, have compassion for priests who have prayed the lame duck translation for a long time. I really do. But then I must ask, is it really very hard to pray the right thing if he keeps his eyes glued on the Missal the whole time for every prayer? I realize that this was perhaps not the practice in years past due to whatever reasons, but as long as priests keep their eyes on the pages, very little mistakes can be made.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The sentence structure is so different from the 2nd Edition that it causes more than a few priests to occasionally stumble when speaking. The placement of prayers is also slightly different so the habit of looking to a particular spot on a page or to a section of the Roman Missal for some prayers or parts of prayers can be a bit confusing as well.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I do, in all honesty, have compassion for priests who have prayed the lame duck translation for a long time. I really do. But then I must ask, is it really very hard to pray the right thing if he keeps his eyes glued on the Missal the whole time for every prayer? I realize that this was perhaps not the practice in years past due to whatever reasons, but as long as priests keep their eyes on the pages, very little mistakes can be made.
Click to expand...
I am sacristan at my parish, and my priest told me it is very difficult do some of the physical motions and read the prayers in the missal, He says with his arms raised he can’t even see the Roman Missal’s words because in his book they are at the bottom right of the page. Please be patient with your priest they are trying to replace old prayers of the liturgy that are a part of their minds. Even before the new changes, my priest believes in using the Roman Missal and not relying on memory.
 
Cathryn said:
I am sacristan at my parish, and my priest told me it is very difficult do some of the physical motions and read the prayers in the missal, He says with his arms raised he can’t even see the Roman Missal’s words because in his book they are at the bottom right of the page. Please be patient with your priest they are trying to replace old prayers of the liturgy that are a part of their minds. Even before the new changes, my priest believes in using the Roman Missal and not relying on memory.
Click to expand...
Well, personally, my own priest is doing a good job. He doesn’t mess up much, except he does severely ad lib the Ecce agnus dei, which is annoying, but I do think that was allowed before.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, personally, my own priest is doing a good job. He doesn’t mess up much, except he does severely ad lib the Ecce agnus dei, which is annoying, but I do think that was allowed before.
Click to expand...
To Ad lib has never been allowed. It is illicit to change the words of the Mass, that is what the Roman Missal, or previously the Sacramentary, is for. The words of the Mass have been chosen by the Church for a reason. It’s not up to the parish priest to make it better, or more his style.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top