Disenchantment with Parish

[MrS]

Not saying you are progressive but a good progressive would draw the conclusion that a long confessional line is a good example of “community” er that is if you would just remove the stale idea of having a priest present and penitents could confess to each other…of course not personal sins…(becuase there is no such thing) but certainly the sins of society…like global warming and baby seal killing and …the depravity of womans healthcare…

You can perk up a renewed interest for EM by having those in the confessional line stand, hold hands, and sing with a guitar and drum band playing Amazing Grace.

The progressives, the relativists, the modernists, will all secumb to the power of the sacraments… most especially the Eucharist as celebrated in the EF, and promoted with some wonderful brochures in the Church info rack.

 

[luvlife]

Makes me wish we had cable… I’ve not seen EWTN…

 

[Brendan]

My confessor hears confession for 2.5 hours on saturday afternoons…the last time I went to confession there was 35 people in line. It is foolish to think that a priest could schedule 35 appointments in a week.

No kidding!

Our parish has confessions heard for 1/2 hour before every Mass ( and we have 3 each weekday and 6 on Sundays), plus 2 hours Saturday afternoon. That 14 hours each week where confessions are heard.

The lines are always long.

So for our pastor and associate pastor to make appointments for private confessions for a few hundred people each week would be really interesting to manage.

 

[Brendan]

If you have a good internet connection, you can watch it from the internet.

ewtn.com/

Select Television\Live TV - English, and then choose which media player (Windows Media or Real).

 

[benedictgal]

I find this kind of comment silly on a good day.
Hmm - visiting the Vatican, special event, hmmmm pope hearing confessions hmmmmm

I wonder if they get those kinds of numbers on days when he is not hearing confessions himself… :doh2:

I don’t have voyeuristic tendencies - not watching others line up for such a thing is no loss here nor am I involved in conducting such services.

This is not voyeurism, unless you also consider watching the Spurs play basketball on TNT or the Cowboys on the NFL Network the same thing. Please. We watch the Oscars, the Emmy Awards and even the presidential debates. Why denigrate live broadcasts of Papal events?

Your sarcasm is quite disrespectful. While your disdain for EWTN is evident, you do not need to take on an insulting tone. If you have a strong negative attitude towards EWTN and its broadcat of Papal Masses, that is your choice. Do not insult or denigrate those of us who value the network and the wonderful work it has done for the past 25+ years.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Evidently, Francis Cardinal Arinze doesn’t agree with your opinion, as he’s been very supportive of Adoremus, to the point of having blessed their offices (as I pointed out in an earlier thread). Neither you nor I are of Cardinal Arinze’s liturgical caliber, nor are we of Pope Benedict’s, for that matter.

How “much further than the Church” does Adoremus actually go? The issue of EMHC-overuse was addressed by Cardinal Arinze at teh Adoremus website. Even he says they’re overused. But, since his comments appear on Adoremus, perhaps you would not consider their merits. Frankly, many things that Adoremus has brought attention to are now, slowly, being addressed under Pope Benedict’s blessed reign.

How “much further than the Church” does EWTN actually go? For esteemed Church leaders like the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Arinze, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Dr. Scott Hahn and others to appear on EWTN, there’s got to be something viable at the network.

Elisha, you say that EWTN is not allowed in your house. So, I guess the Papal Masses, the Papal Penitential Service and, I supposed Pope Benedict’s visit to the USA will also be off-limits at your place as well. Why would you deprived yourself of hearing what the Holy Father has to say? Why not witness a beautiful liturgy and perhaps learn something from Pope Benedict when it comes to the proper celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

In another thread, PGA noted that there are people in certain circles who don’t like Adoremus. Well, I can tell you this: keep hanging around in circles and you’ll wind up going in circles, with no clear direction whatsoever.

How 'bout this: I think Extraordinary ministers are overused. For my nuptial mass, I am lining up enough priests and deacons so as to have no need of them.

But that is not really the issue; Adoramus does not stick to facts. The fact is that there is a provision for Extraordinary ministers. I can recall reading Adoramus literature that seemed to imply that the whole thing is illicit. Overused, yes. Ideal, no. But allowed for.

Adoramus also has many other pet causes, such as when I read an article about purging inclusive language from hymnody. Now, don’t paint with broad strokes and back me into a corner here. I hate the changing of approved mass texts for the sake of inclusive language. When I became the director of music at my current parish, the first thing to go was “Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to God’s people on earth.” It was changed to the correct wording. Hymns, however, are not texts of the liturgy. They are poetry set to music. I see nothing wrong in the world with changing a text to say “for all” instead of “for men”. I believe that using gender neutral terms for God goes too far; after all, Jesus called God our Father. But when talking about human beings, why not just be inclusive if someone finds the term “men” offensive? We are not talking about the liturgy here; these are not texts of the mass. But yet Adoramus feels the need to fight this battle.

 

[benedictgal]

How 'bout this: I think Extraordinary ministers are overused. For my nuptial mass, I am lining up enough priests and deacons so as to have no need of them.

But that is not really the issue; Adoramus does not stick to facts. The fact is that there is a provision for Extraordinary ministers. I can recall reading Adoramus literature that seemed to imply that the whole thing is illicit. Overused, yes. Ideal, no. But allowed for.

Adoramus also has many other pet causes, such as when I read an article about purging inclusive language from hymnody. Now, don’t paint with broad strokes and back me into a corner here. I hate the changing of approved mass texts for the sake of inclusive language. When I became the director of music at my current parish, the first thing to go was “Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to God’s people on earth.” It was changed to the correct wording. Hymns, however, are not texts of the liturgy. They are poetry set to music. I see nothing wrong in the world with changing a text to say “for all” instead of “for men”. I believe that using gender neutral terms for God goes too far; after all, Jesus called God our Father. But when talking about human beings, why not just be inclusive if someone finds the term “men” offensive? We are not talking about the liturgy here; these are not texts of the mass. But yet Adoramus feels the need to fight this battle.

Your problem is that you don’t agree with their liturgical theology, which, by the way, does happen to mirror Cardinal Arinze’s viewpoints, as well as Pope Benedict’s.

Furthermore, your argument regarding “pro multis” is pretty much nullified by the fact that the Holy See has issued a document clarifying the situation. Yes, you argue against using the word “men”; however, for generations, the term has been used to indicate both genders. By the way, “men” happens to be in the texts of the liturgy, in case you’ve forgotten because you’re too busy in your quest for this so-called inclusive language.

Let’s face it PGA, for all your sarcasm and utter disdain for Adoremus, you aren’t really getting anywhere with your arguments. .

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Your problem is that you don’t agree with their liturgical theology, which, by the way, does happen to mirror Cardinal Arinze’s viewpoints, as well as Pope Benedict’s.

Furthermore, your argument regarding “pro multis” is pretty much nullified by the fact that the Holy See has issued a document clarifying the situation. Yes, you argue against using the word “men”; however, for generations, the term has been used to indicate both genders. By the way, “men” happens to be in the texts of the liturgy, in case you’ve forgotten because you’re too busy in your quest for this so-called inclusive language.

Let’s face it PGA, for all your sarcasm and utter disdain for Adoremus, you aren’t really getting anywhere with your arguments. .

Please READ my post. I don’t argue against the word men. What I argue is that hymns are not liturgical texts and their wording can be changed. The texts of the liturgy cannot be changed. I think I am being quite clear.

I am not being one bit sarcastic; I am having a conversation with you. And I’m not trying to “get anywhere” at all. I am simply making my view point known within this discussion.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This is not voyeurism, unless you also consider watching the Spurs play basketball on TNT or the Cowboys on the NFL Network the same thing. Please. We watch the Oscars, the Emmy Awards and even the presidential debates. Why denigrate live broadcasts of Papal events?

Your sarcasm is quite disrespectful. While your disdain for EWTN is evident, you do not need to take on an insulting tone. If you have a strong negative attitude towards EWTN and its broadcat of Papal Masses, that is your choice. Do not insult or denigrate those of us who value the network and the wonderful work it has done for the past 25+ years.

I am not the one suggesting others watch folks wait on lines for confession or equating such viewing to a sports game.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

You can perk up a renewed interest for EM by having those in the confessional line stand, hold hands, and sing with a guitar and drum band playing Amazing Grace.

The progressives, the relativists, the modernists, will all secumb to the power of the sacraments… most especially the Eucharist as celebrated in the EF, and promoted with some wonderful brochures in the Church info rack.

Please don’t use my name/initials for your fictional characters.

TIA

 

[benedictgal]

I am not the one suggesting others watch folks wait on lines for confession or equating such viewing to a sports game.

But, you are mistakenly calling this “voyeurism”. We’re not listening to their confessions; in fact, the camera is several, several feet away, panning big chunks of the basilica. Furthermore, while the penitents were going to confession, meditations were being read for the people and psalms were being chanted.

Furthermore, if you are going to accuse anyone of promoting “voyeurism”, then, you might just want to take that up with the Holy Father because he is the one who authorizes the CTV (Centro Television Vaticano) to broadcast all of the Papal liturgical celebrations. EWTN is one of CTV’s broadcast partners.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

But, you are mistakenly calling this “voyeurism”. We’re not listening to their confessions; in fact, the camera is several, several feet away, panning big chunks of the basilica. Furthermore, while the penitents were going to confession, meditations were being read for the people and psalms were being chanted.

Furthermore, if you are going to accuse anyone of promoting “voyeurism”, then, you might just want to take that up with the Holy Father because he is the one who authorizes the CTV (Centro Television Vaticano) to broadcast all of the Papal liturgical celebrations. EWTN is one of CTV’s broadcast partners.

I feel it is a form of voyeurism (as in the enjoyment of seeing the pain or distress of others).

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.