Does anyone else hate reading the "Crowd" part on Palm Sunday readings?

[jmcrae]

Here is the prayer from the Ninth Station:

Again, while Pope Benedict does not specifically state anything about the crowd on Palm Sunday, please note where he says “Adam continues to fall”. All of us descended from Adam. We are of the same flesh and bone as Adam.

Yes, we fall. We are not required, therefore, to jump.

 

[benedictgal]

We should not say words that we don’t actually mean in our hearts, when we are praying to God. (Or at any other time, either.)

Yes, I am a sinner. Yes, my sins are why Jesus had to die on the Cross. How does adding yet another sin to my pile of sins help the situation?

Just where do you get the idea that reading the part of the crowd is sinful? If it were sinful, why would the Church specifically allow for all of us to join in on the proclamation of the Passion of Christ twice a year?

Your logic simply does not add up.

 

[dcb188]

I think I understand now. WE determine what we do in the Liturgy that our own Church has given us. Not the Church itself. Us. Makes it so much easier to then pass over The Crowd’s part in silence next year. I had not realized it was a sin to utter those words, but I see it now. Yes, if we don’t like parts of the church liturgy, we simply pass over it in silence, so it becomes our individual liturgy .And if later on, we decide that, well, we dislike other things during the Mass, well, the thing to do is to pass over those also. I had thought this would be a dangerous position to take. I am amazed that the distinction between right and wrong continues to blur as time goes on. It has been that way for at least fifty years now, when we began not knowing what is right and what is wrong, and we make it up as we go along, i.e. what is right for us as individuals. So if the church wants us to play a certain role in a dramatization of events, no, we should decide, each of us, what our conscience will allow us to do.

 

[jmcrae]

I think I understand now. WE determine what we do in the Liturgy that our own Church has given us. Not the Church itself.

It is the Church itself, in my Diocese at least, that is having the Narrator read out that part to tell us what the crowd did, instead of making the congregation actually do what the crowd did.

 

[benedictgal]

It is the Church itself, in my Diocese at least, that is having the Narrator read out that part to tell us what the crowd did, instead of making the congregation actually do what the crowd did.

However, you keep alleging that it is sinful for us to read the parts. Please share with us how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[jmcrae]

However, you keep alleging that it is sinful for us to read the parts. Please share with us how you arrived at that conclusion.

Yelling “Crucify him!” would be a sin if you did it in your front yard, right?

The crowds who yelled it at the time of Christ were committing a sin at the time, right?

This is not a dramatic re-enactment in which we are merely reciting a line to portray a past event, right?

Rather, we are at prayer, and we are speaking to God the thoughts of our hearts (or at least, the thoughts that we are supposed to be thinking).

So - in what sense is it virtuous, to do this?

 

[dcb188]

What you need to do is bring this up with your priest, not with me, as I did not write the liturgy of the Mass, and ask him this question: “Would the Catholic Church have me commit a sin during Mass itself? Or could it be the way I am looking at it?”

 

[benedictgal]

Yelling “Crucify him!” would be a sin if you did it in your front yard, right?

The crowds who yelled it at the time of Christ were committing a sin at the time, right?

This is not a dramatic re-enactment in which we are merely reciting a line to portray a past event, right?

Rather, we are at prayer, and we are speaking to God the thoughts of our hearts (or at least, the thoughts that we are supposed to be thinking).

So - in what sense is it virtuous, to do this?

You are taking this whole thing out of context. We are not "yelling"outside of the confines of the Liturgy. In fact, we are not even yelling at all, we are reading and we are taking a part that is rightfully ours because of the sins we have committed (and continue to commit throughout the course of our lives).

Are you saying, then, that the Chruch is asking us to do something sinful when we appropriate the part that we play in all of this and continue to play?

Please look at the lyrics for O Sacred Head Surrounded written by St. Bernard of Clairvaux :

O Sacred Head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding Head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of Thy most Holy Face,
yet angel hosts adore Thee
and tremble as they gaze

And, mind you, this was written back in the 12th century. With all due respect, this is a very flawed sense of the Passion of Our Lord and a flawed sense of liturgy, as I read your post.

 

[brockmac]

I haven’t read the entire thread, so I may be saying something that has already been said, but I will say it anyway. I used to feel much like the original poster and hated saying those words. But over time, I began to think like BG. I realized that when ever I sin I am shouting or perhaps ashamedly whispering “Crucify Him”.

A couple of years ago I took my then 9 year old daughters to a Good Friday liturgy. When it came time to venerate the Cross, one of them asked me why we were kissing the Cross when it was the thing that was used to kill Jesus. I told her that inspite of the fact that I hate the need for Jesus to have died, I am grateful that He did, because without His death, I could not hope for Heaven. For I realize that my sins make me just as culpable for Jesus’ execution as those angry mobs outside of Pilate’s palace. I may hide my sin in shame, but I call for my Saviour’s blood just the same. I believe it is important for me to be reminded of that from time to time and being asked to say outloud “Crucify Him” on Palm Sunday and again on Good Friday serves just that purpose.

 

[EasterJoy]

Its not black and white. Its not either you are Judas or you are Mary. There are shads in between. The crowds yelling for cruscifixtion wer most like Judas. Theya wer not Disciples! The Discuples and the Apostles were different. The disciples and the Apostles were weak, but they did not turn on Jesus. Only one was a horrible traitor, Judas.

A
I cannot beleive these horrible words would ever come out of Our lady’s mouth. This is crazy.

All true.

I agree our sin is misery. However, I know I received the Grace of God in Baptism as an infant and perhaps thats I would NEVER do the deed itself.

You say many true things EasterJoy, but imagining Our Lady uttering those words makes me shudder, and offends me. And I do not draw the same inspiration out of saying “Crucify him!” that you do. And I am glad that some parishes and dioceses are recognizing those who feel like I do and are ommitting that call for our audience participation.

I would like to hear what a good theologian has to say on the subject, if anyone can find any links.

I did not say that Our Lady would have spoken the words at the time! Of course not! I’m saying that she’d consent to take part in the lay part of this proclamation of the Gospel. Our whole point here is that these two acts are two very separate things!

As I said: Our Lady, who was purity itself, consented to the Jewish rite of purification after the Birth of Our Lord, just as the Lord insisted that John include him in John’s baptism of repentance. It wasn’t because they had anything to repent of or be purified of, but neither was it a lie for them to accept the ritual with humility. Their acts were truthful, because by these acts, they were willing to be counted among our number. Now if they, who never sinned, were willing to be counted with the unjust, is it wrong to expect us to do the same, when we must admit that we do in fact have the Blood of the Lord Jesus on our hands? Or shall we pretend that we are different, or that our sins are not so bad as that?

Conversely, how can we say in one breath that we love our enemies, and in another breath say that we could never be like them, that the nature of our own sin is in no way comparable to their sin? I don’t get that.

So while of course it is distasteful to have to proclaim that part of the Gospel, one can hardly argue concerning the force of having to have it proclaimed in that way: that is, to hear the most distasteful words in all of Holy Scripture coming out of our own mouths. Whenever we do that, let us remember that our own sins are cut from that same filthy fabric, if we only admit it. Let us resolve, too, to love those who still cling to that filth, and to love them without reservation, as the Lord loved us, so that God may “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” After all, it is only by God’s grace that we differ at all. Those are the plain facts that the observance of Good Friday intends to have us confront.

Two people in the history of the human race ever deserved any qualification on those terms. I think it telling that those two did not seek any such thing. They humbled themselves, and threw their lots in with us, instead: Our Lady, because she glorified God by admitting her poverty freely, and therefore is the Model of Christians, and Our Lord by obediently submitting to our poverty in order to free us. That is what love does.

 

[jmcrae]

O Sacred Head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding Head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of Thy most Holy Face,
yet angel hosts adore Thee
and tremble as they gaze

And, mind you, this was written back in the 12th century.

Yes, it is a beautiful hymn. Yes, we have sinned in the past. St. Bernard is not asking us to prove our sinfulness, by marking up an image of Christ. He states that we have (past tense) done this, but he proposes no ritual re-enactment of the fact.

 

[cosfini05]

As far as the comment on “Peter did not betray our Lord, he denied Him,”…wouldn’t denial be a form of betrayal? If My wife were in a difficult position, and I just “denied” her because I was embarrassed, that would a type of betrayal, would it not?

As far as the Passion Gospels and the participation of the people, this is what the USCCB has to say:

While it has a dramatic quality, the Passion is not so much a drama enacted as a narrative proclaimed solemnly and simply, without candles, incense, greeting, or signs of the cross.
According to the Lectionary for Holy Week; the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM); and the 1988 document from the Congregation for Divine Worship on Easter celebrations, Paschalis Sollemnitatis:

1. The Passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the part of Christ, the narrator, and the people. The Passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of the Christ should be reserved to the priest.
2. The order for the celebration of the Lord’s Passion (the Liturgy of the Word, the adoration of the cross, and Holy Communion) that stems from an ancient tradition of the Church should be observed faithfully and religiously and may not be changed by anyone on his own initiative.

Someone commented earlier that their child broke down and wept b/c she felt she was responsible for Christ’s death. Are we not all (adults and children) responsible for His death? I have two baby boys who inherited Original Sin, like I did when I was born. Yes, the waters of baptism cleanse us of the sin, but the effects remain. Because of it, we live life like seeing a photo through negatives. We can’t see the whole picture unless we have the Church to guide us. I think the narrative of the Passion helps us delve deeper and deeper into the Mystery of the Passion, by helping us to embrace the fact that as we have sinned, we too are like the people who rejected Christ and shouted, “Crucify Him!” What about the soldiers who mocked him and spat at Him? Do we not act in the same way when we defy Him or disobey Him, or try to justify what we feel to be appropriate for us. Obedience and humility are never easy to learn, but it’s important if we are to recognize our role in Christ’s Passion. Just like, whenever I recite the Rosary, it’s like saying “I love Mary” over and over again, when I read the parts, “Crucify Him,” I acknowledge that that is what I have done, over and over again, everyday, unfortunately, when I sin. Or worse, I am like the soldiers who spat in His face and beat Him. I am acknowledging my reponsibilty, which allows me to fall on my knees and ask for forgiveness, over and over again!

 

[EasterJoy]

Yelling “Crucify him!” would be a sin if you did it in your front yard, right?

The crowds who yelled it at the time of Christ were committing a sin at the time, right?

This is not a dramatic re-enactment in which we are merely reciting a line to portray a past event, right?

Rather, we are at prayer, and we are speaking to God the thoughts of our hearts (or at least, the thoughts that we are supposed to be thinking).

So - in what sense is it virtuous, to do this?

Shall we never hear, in the Liturgy of the Word, the words by which the Pharisees blasphemed the Lord? Shall we not read the Passion at all? By your reckoning, who shall read those words, and yet not sin?

The words of Holy Scripture are the truth. It isn’t a sin to speak them out loud. It is a sin to think that they don’t apply to us. For what did the Lord say?

Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.” John 9: 39-41

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, it is a beautiful hymn. Yes, we have sinned in the past. St. Bernard is not asking us to prove our sinfulness, by marking up an image of Christ. He states that we have (past tense) done this, but he proposes no ritual re-enactment of the fact.

Well, let’s not read the Passion at all then, for who could read the words aloud, and not sin? Yet the Passion of the Lord does have to be proclaimed, does it not?

If the words have to be spoken, let us speak them together, for the words apply to all.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, it is a beautiful hymn. Yes, we have sinned in the past. St. Bernard is not asking us to prove our sinfulness, by marking up an image of Christ. He states that we have (past tense) done this, but he proposes no ritual re-enactment of the fact.

We continue to sin. By the very act of sinning, we take part in the calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. Has that not been made clear to you?

 

[jmcrae]

Shall we never hear, in the Liturgy of the Word, the words by which the Pharisees blasphemed the Lord? Shall we not read the Passion at all? By your reckoning, who shall read those words, and yet not sin?

There is a huge, huge difference between reading out ‘And then the crowds shouted “Crucify him! Crucify him!”’ and actually shouting out “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

The words of Holy Scripture are the truth.

The words of Holy Scripture are narrative (story-telling); not Liturgy. The words of Holy Scripture contain the information of when this was said, and who said it - it’s not us saying it, in the here and now - it’s someone reading out a story of what happened in the time of Jesus.

By making the story into a Liturgy, we are bringing it into the here and now. It’s now no longer the people of the past saying and doing these things - it’s us.

 

[jmcrae]

We continue to sin. By the very act of sinning, we take part in the calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. Has that not been made clear to you?

If I commited a murder in the past, should I atone for it by killing again in order to demonstrate that I am a murderer?

 

[benedictgal]

There is a huge, huge difference between reading out ‘And then the crowds shouted “Crucify him! Crucify him!”’ and actually shouting out “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

The words of Holy Scripture are narrative (story-telling); not Liturgy. The words of Holy Scripture contain the information of when this was said, and who said it - it’s not us saying it, in the here and now - it’s someone reading out a story of what happened in the time of Jesus.

The words of Holy Scripture are part of the Liturgy. With all due respect, all of this flawed logic makes me wonder just what exactly is taught in RCIA. I do not mean to sound insulting, but, as I read your posts, there is some skewed logic and misunderstanding about the Mass.

This is the text for the Eucharistic Prayers for Various Needs:

You are truly blessed, O God of holiness: you accompany us with love as we journey through life. Blessed too is your Son, Jesus Christ, who is present among us and whose love gathers us together. As once he did for his disciples, **Christ now opens the scriptures for us **and breaks the bread.

The words of Sacred Scripture are not some mere historical rendition. They are livinjg, efficacious and eternally relevent.

 

[benedictgal]

If I commited a murder in the past, should I atone for it by killing again in order to demonstrate that I am a murderer?

Again, as I read your posts, it appears to me that you do not seem to understand the essence of the reading of the Passion. When we enter into the liturgy, we enter into God’s time, which is eternal. For God, everything is present. We are just as much a part of Calvary as the people were.

 

[jmcrae]

The words of Sacred Scripture are not some mere historical rendition. They are livinjg, efficacious and eternally relevent.

In that they tell us who we are, yes. In that we need to continue to commit the same sins? I don’t understand that part.