Deacon's homily against the EF (3/11/12)

  • Thread starter Thread starter EcceAgnusDei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EcceAgnusDei

Guest
A deacon in California preached that the Church doing away with the EF after Vatican II was like Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. He had a slideshow of the EF to make his points, calling aspects of the EF “money changers.” Here’s an excerpt:

(full homily here: ctkph.org/homilies/homilies2012/homily031112.html)
As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II, I think it’s important to remember what things looked like before the council reforms. As the people of God we have always been called to worship well. But, as Father Dibble reminded us last week, the council was called to “open the windows”, to bring some fresh air into every aspect of the church, including worship. If you are as little as five or ten years younger than I, you probably have few memories of the pre-Vatican II church. So I want to take a few minutes to walk down memory land and share with you what it looked like back then.
(Slide 1) This is what the inside of a typical Catholic Church looked like in 1960. There was beautiful art work, painted ceilings, and many statues. If you look at either side of this picture, you’ll notice the “side altars”. Very often, while one mass was being offered at the main altar, separate masses would be offered at one or both of the side altars. The idea that any mass was more about the celebrant than the people might be viewed as one of the pre-Vatican II failings of the church.
(Slide 2) As we look at a closer shot, we see a wooden structure that separates the body of the church from the sanctuary. That’s the communion rail, and it served two functions. It was where one received communion, but it was also a physical barrier between the altar and the people. Could that be a money changer? I’ll come back to that in a minute.
(Slide 3) Look at this altar, with its ornate carvings. You could always tell if the mass was really “important” by two things: how many candles were lit on the altar and how many acolytes served at mass. The more important the feast was, the greater were the numbers of both. Look at all of the steps the priest had to climb to approach the tabernacle. Do you think these trappings might be thought of as institutional failings or “money changers”?
(Slide 4) Here’s another communion rail in front of the altar. This is where everyone had to kneel to receive the Blessed Sacrament. The Communion Cloth, this white cloth, was draped over the communion rail by the altar servers, and then communicants had to kneel with their hands under the cloth in case the priest dropped the host and the altar server didn’t catch it with the paten that was held under the chin of each Communicant. Only the priest and bishop had thumbs and forefingers consecrated so they could touch the host. To me the idea that only consecrated fingers could touch the Blessed Sacrament was a bit silly. Why is any finger more sacred than any other?
(Slide 5) This is a rather innocent looking picture, but there is one thing that is worth noting: we didn’t have altar servers, just altar boys! That’s a pretty obvious failing in the institutional church, and we thankfully now include both girls and boys in altar service.
(Slide 6) And then, after we realized that we had so many money changers in our own lives, we had to go to the confessional. It was dark. It was scary and it seemed to be focused on us doing the correct penance rather than on understanding our failings.
(Slide 7) This last slide shows a joyous day, the day that these young people were confirmed. Don’t they look joyful? I think “terrified” is a better adjective. And look how the boys and girls are segregated.
 
A deacon in California preached that the Church doing away with the EF after Vatican II was like Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. He had a slideshow of the EF to make his points, calling aspects of the EF “money changers.” Here’s an excerpt:

(full homily here: ctkph.org/homilies/homilies2012/homily031112.html)
I see from your profile you are a Traditional Catholic and I know this is the Traditional Catholic section of CAF, but you need to keep in mind that this is simply this particular Deacon’s opinion. I have read links that are given here on CAF by certain members to Traditional sites (those in full and complete union with Rome) that have homilies from priests that say things just as negative about the Mass in Ordinary Form (and some have posted those to sites that are not in union with Rome, too, but the mods remove those). Simply realize that even though he said things about the Mass in EF that you found offensive, it is simply his opinion…as many homilies are the opinion of the priest (or deacon) that’s giving it. Pray for him, for those that heard it, and don’t give him another thought. (That’s what I do for those that go on a rant about the OF).
 
From the homily;

“Just to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the old rites, Latin or the Tridentine Mass”.***

Which is the same as people saying “Just to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the new rites or the Ordinary Form” and then proceeding to have extensive lists detailing what they perceive to be wrong.

I agree with some of the points he made pre-slide show.
 
From the homily;

“Just to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the old rites, Latin or the Tridentine Mass”.***

Which is the same as people saying “Just to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the new rites or the Ordinary Form” and then proceeding to have extensive lists detailing what they perceive to be wrong.

I agree with some of the points he made pre-slide show.
Yes, the contradictions are galling, aren’t they? It’s like saying terrible things about a person and then excusing it away by saying “God bless his heart” at the end…
  • PAX
 
Yes, the contradictions are galling, aren’t they? It’s like saying terrible things about a person and then excusing it away by saying “God bless his heart” at the end…
  • PAX
I know, it’s not like anyone ever does that here when comparing traditions/customs or the Forms of Mass here at CAF. Or when a Society of Apostolic Life does such comparisons.
 
A deacon in California preached that the Church doing away with the EF after Vatican II was like Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. He had a slideshow of the EF to make his points, calling aspects of the EF “money changers.” Here’s an excerpt:

(full homily here: ctkph.org/homilies/homilies2012/homily031112.html)
Unfortunately, some Catholics have been taught just that, which is why one hears comments like:

Unfortunately, some Catholics have been taught just that, which is why you hear comments like:

• I don’t like the priest with his back to the people.
• I’m glad women can now participate in mass.
• Why would I want to attend a mass in a language I don’t understand?

Etc, etc.

Etc, etc.
 
Unfortunately, some Catholics have been taught just that, which is why one hears comments like:

• I don’t like the priest with his back to the people.
• I’m glad I can participate in mass
• Why would I want to attend a mass in a language I don’t understand?
• I’m glad women can now participate in mass.

Etc, etc.
Indeed. The state of catechesis in the Church is surely in need of improvement, especially as concerns the EF and pre-Vatican II traditions that were unnecessarily jettisoned.
  • PAX
 
Very sad. I am a trad who favors the restored permanent diaconate, and would like to see the minor orders restored too. But not with guys like this.

It’s his opinion. But it’s wrong. It’s anti-Catholic. And opinions are not fit for homilies, but especially opinions like this.
 
Unfortunately, some Catholics have been taught just that, which is why you hear comments like:

• I don’t like the priest with his back to the people.
• I’m glad women can now participate in mass.
• Why would I want to attend a mass in a language I don’t understand?

Etc, etc.
Yes, and along the same lines, unfortunately, I here often in these very forums and other places:
  • I don’t like it that the Church turned the priest around to face the people.
  • I don’t like it that the Church has begun to allow women to assist at the altar (as EMHCs, lectors, or servers)
  • I don’t like it that the Church is now allowing the mass, and other liturgical functions to be prayed in the vernacular.
Etc, etc.

While I am not defending what the above quoted deacon is saying, Either form IS valid and approved by the Church (so are MANY others), and we should all be tolerant of our brother’s and sister’s “tastes” in the way liturgies are celebrated (as long as the Church also approves)
 
It amazes me that half of the responses on this thread are pretty much “Oh well.” And “How ya like them Apples”?

This is the traditional Catholic forum right?
 
Yes, and along the same lines, unfortunately, I here often in these very forums and other places:
  • I don’t like it that the Church turned the priest around to face the people.
  • I don’t like it that the Church has begun to allow women to assist at the altar (as EMHCs, lectors, or servers)
  • I don’t like it that the Church is now allowing the mass, and other liturgical functions to be prayed in the vernacular.
Etc, etc.

While I am not defending what the above quoted deacon is saying, Either form IS valid and approved by the Church (so are MANY others), and we should all be tolerant of our brother’s and sister’s “tastes” in the way liturgies are celebrated (as long as the Church also approves)
But those are not misunderstandings.The Church has allowed priests to face the people, has allowed women to assist, and does allow the vernacular. And I don’t have to like it.

By TrueLight mentioned common mistaken notions. To say “back to the people” gives a false idea without mentioning that the priest leads us facing God. To be glad women can now participate is to deny hat in the EF women participate by uniting themselves to the Sacrifice which is more important that doing things at the altar. To say no one understands Latin is to forget that much we can understand through catechesis and that much we don’t need to understand because the priest prays to God, who knows Latin.

All are entitled to their opinion but it should be based on facts.
 
It amazes me that half of the responses on this thread are pretty much “Oh well.” And “How ya like them Apples”?

This is the traditional Catholic forum right?
I’m bored at work, which is why I’m posting more than usual. And besides, only six people posted so far, so the ratios are messed up 🙂
 
I’m bored at work, which is why I’m posting more than usual. And besides, only six people posted so far, so the ratios are messed up 🙂
I post sometimes to liven up the drudgery. One user case after another gets boring as well. 😛
 
As I’ve poked around that church’s website, I find this is not just the attitude of a deacon. The previous weak the priest gave a homily with some zingers in it, too. Here are some excerpts again:

(full homily: ctkph.org/homilies/homilies2012/homily030412.html)
But I went to a Vatican I grammar school and a Vatican I seminary and then when Vatican II came along, “Whss, whss, whss, whss” stopped. All the worries and anxieties, and all the nervous scruples, and “This is a sin. Is this a sin? What kind of a sin is it? Is it a mortal sin? Is it a venial sin?” All that stopped.
Shouldn’t we worry about sin? Shouldn’t we worry about the state of our eternal soul? The priest here just basically told his parishioners that worrying about sin was pre-VII and now we’ve done away with that.
Well, they didn’t know what they got when they got John XXIII. He was small and gentle and kind and old and sick with cancer. But, in a couple of years he said, “We’re going to hold a big party. We’re going to call it “Vatican II” and we’re going to invite everybody. The church is not a museum to be carefully dusted, and preserved from too many visitors. It’s a garden and the garden needs some sun. So we’re going to open some windows and we’re going to have a big council. We’ve had Vatican I. We’ll call it Vatican II and we’re going to invite Protestants, (What ! ! !) Jews (You’re kidding ! ! !) Communists (No way ! ! ! )” Now, he never got to women, but he was 77.
Ecumenical councils are big parties? And we’re proud that we invited non-Catholics to influence our presentation of doctrine?
For example, after Vatican II, the mass could change [He turns around with his back to the audience and mumbles.]. . . I’m not mocking that.
He is absolutely mocking the EF if he turns his back around and mumbles as a parody of the Mass.
And as for being at Mass, when I got here in 1999 [This is the end.], 1999 is long after Vatican II. But I came from a New York that was in many ways Vatican I. The pastor was a sweet, kind guy. He was, with a wonderful heart. But he still believed much more in Vatican I with his best heart and his best brain, Vatican I. And you had 12 gestures during mass, 12 different gestures. When I came here you only needed one –Vatican II. [Raises his hands] Let’s pray.
This is so frustrating! He basically says: the only thing the Church needs is Vatican II. That’s it. Nothing else. With that one gesture of his, raising his hands, he wipes out 1960 years of the Church.

The more I poke around that website the more scandalized I become. I think this parish might be the poster-child for the spirit of Vatican II. For three straight sermons (I won’t post excerpts from the other one, you can find it) the priest/deacon discusses how wonderful VII was and how bad the church was before.

Ok, sorry, one last excerpt. After downplaying the importance of the breviary, Father lets us know what prayer book he uses:
I have a prayer book here I’ve been using. It’s written by a United Church of Christ minister. He’s been ordained for 25 years. It’s called “If Darwin Prayed.” There’s a prayer on each page. I love this one called “Send in the Clowns.”
Kyrie eleison.
  • PAX
 
This guy is pretty ignorant.

It should however be pointed out that there were very good reasons that vatican 2 took place. Yes, there is a great deal more that needs to be done in our church (as demonstrated by this deacon). It is however my observation that this ignorance is not a result of vatican 2.
 
I don’t believe the deacon’s analogy holds water, equating what he obviously dislikes about the old times with that which Christ referred to in the Temple area as “money changers.”

Re-reading the scriptures, we see:
The Cleansing of the Temple.*

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.
And he said to them, “It is written:
‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’*
but you are making it a den of thieves.”

The blind and the lame approached him in the temple area, and he cured them.
When the chief priests and the scribes saw the wondrous things he was doing, and the children crying out in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant
and said to him, “Do you hear what they are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; and have you never read the text, ‘Out of the mouths of infants and nurslings you have brought forth praise’?”

And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany, and there he spent the night."

Jesus was concerned and angry with the area surrounding the Temple, His house of prayer, being used as nothing more than a moneymaking scheme, “a den of thieves.”

One might see an entirely different analogy here. Outside of The Church, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are people purveying all manner of psychological tricks, new age “religions,” drugs to quiet us, entertainment to seduce us, bickering, divisive arguments and pure folly.

In effect, purveyors of false belief systems pandering with the stuff of people’s souls. The thieves are just outside the temple area, barring those innocent souls who simply want to walk forward into Church with hearts as pure as the doves, hearts that belong only to God. Priceless, each soul, walking forward into the Church without any need to buy into divisive arguments or man made divisions. That is what I see outside the Temple. But walk inside and see that which He has prepared for us! The Real Presence of Christ.

Once we step inside the Church, we let all that encumbers us fall away. Historically, from the moment Christ handed the keys of the kingdom to Saint Peter, we were all set on sacred ground. “The Gates of Hell,” Christ told us, “shall not prevail against” Her. Neither shall divisions of taste, preferences or analogies that confuse and divide.

Those brothers and sisters among us who have their preferences as to which Rite speaks best to their souls, all among us must unite in the love God has given us through the divine continuity of His Real Presence.

Whether we like the old ways or the new, The Church has always been God’s house of prayer. The Church, as the Bride of Christ, may well be undergoing transformations, but She is to be spoken of reverently. She has always been Christ’s Bride.

Decent people received Christ at those long-ago Communion altars just as we do now. People may have gone to confession with a different understanding psychologically, but are we so much better today, when fewer people actually go to confession?

To equate past liturgical forms or growing pains with the terms “moneychangers,” seems not to be opening windows, but trampling on sacred ground.

Christ spoke of the infants and nurslings having great wisdom. Before we are even in our mother’s womb, our spirits are pure and chaste, and joyfully stretching our souls towards perfect unity with our Heavenly Father who created all.

“I was glad when he said unto me ‘Let us go into the House of the Lord.’”

“The joy of the Lord is my strength.” Let His joy rule among us, to give us strength to face whatever changes come, and to respect the ways of those who have gone before us.

Let those who prefer tradition rejoice with those who welcome change. Let justice and mercy kiss one another, and the old and the new face the altar with pure hearts!

There is beauty wheresoever Christ is present. Our Holy Church, in Her beliefs in the Real Presence, Her Sacraments, Her People, all are part of God’s house of prayer.
 
This is the single most actively insidious homily I think I’ve ever heard. What rank impiety!
 
Another cleric who has become a “Magisterial” legend…in his own mind!

What he is really saying is: * Ah, excuse me Pope Benedict XVI…but you are sitting in my Chair…please move!*

The Good News: Vatican II took the “training wheels” off Catholicism…and made us much more acutely responsible for living our Catholic Faith…for following the Church’s teaching on all matters of faith and morals…and it put many practices of our faith into our hands, such as…routine use of the Sacrament of Confession, fidelity to weekly Sunday Mass attendance, etc…and…gave us the ultimate opportunity: to eat the fruit…the infamous apple…off the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil… to make ourselves the Authority of what is good and what is evil…or…or…to be obedient to Christ,The Lord, and to his Church…and to abstain…and thus give our assent of faith…to follow the Pope, the Magisterium, our bishop and to form our mind and our conscience to think with the mind and heart of the Church!

So, my question for the Deacon would be:…hey Deacon…how do you like them apples?

Pax Christi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top