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

[benedictgal]

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.

You have yet to cite anything authoritative from the Church that states that we are sinning by reading the part of the crowd in the Passion.

If the Church states that it is an acceptable practice, then, why do you keep making the charge that it is sinful? Please explain that.

Last night, while doing the final preparations for the Priests LOTH, I talked with my best friend (who is a prelate) about the question raised by the OP, and your subsequent posts. My friend is very learned and very spiritual (not to mention orthodox and the finest homilist in our diocese). He told me that we are that crowd. He reiterated just about everything that I posted.

He said that as a child, the reading of the part of the crowd drove home to him the point about our sinfulness, and, this helped him have a deep love for the liturgy. Obviously, it impacted him greatly to the point that early on, he knew he was going to be a priest. Well, he turned out to be a fine one.

 

[jmcrae]

You have yet to cite anything authoritative from the Church that states that we are sinning by reading the part of the crowd in the Passion.

If the Church states that it is an acceptable practice, then, why do you keep making the charge that it is sinful? Please explain that.

It’s not “sinful” for those who are being commanded to do it, since it is never a sin to do as you are told.

However, if shouting out “Crucify him!” was a sin at the time that it was done, and if we “are that crowd” then are we not entering into the same sin as that same crowd?

You have rightly pointed out that this is not play-acting, and it is not a narrative - this is you, personally, shouting out that you want Jesus to be crucified.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

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.

In other words, they were like that, they were capable of that kind of sin, but we’re not? I’m having trouble hearing the difference between what you’re saying and “Thank you, Lord, that I am not like other men…”

Yes, there is a huge, huge difference. The huge difference is admitting, not that people were at one time capable of the sin that put Jesus on the Cross, but admitting that we ourselves are capable of it…that it is, indeed, it is our sins that are responsible for his Crucifixion. There is no getting around it and there is no passing off the buck: He died because of our sins, because of* our* blindness, because of what* we* have done. His Precious Blood is on *our *hands. You don’t deny that, right? You admit that He was not convicted because of the accidental events of a certain time? You admit that He didn’t die because of the particular sinfulness of a certain crowd with which we have nothing in common? You are willing to admit responsibility, right?

Isn’t the entire Passion related in the past tense? So what is sinful with explicitly admitting our complicity in the unjust sentence passed on Him, a sentence which He transformed by His obedience into our salvation? What is sinful with admitting it, “This was my part. I did this thing, too, and not just that crowd at that moment”?

Having said all that, I think Benedictgal has the most common-sense point: If it is in the rubrics, if it is the way the Church has specified that the Gospel is to be proclaimed, there is no sin in it.
How we understand that is not so important as that we do understand that. The rest of the discussion is kind of besides the point, by comparison.

 

[EasterJoy]

You have rightly pointed out that this is not play-acting, and it is not a narrative - this is you, personally, shouting out that you want Jesus to be crucified.

The story is related in the past tense. It is true, and relating the account as if we are just as responsible as those who were present and said the words is also true: not that we are crucifying Him in the present moment, but that we have chosen it in our pasts.

It is not enjoyable to admit that, but it is the truth.

 

[jmcrae]

The story is related in the past tense. It is true, and relating the account as if we are just as responsible as those who were present and said the words is also true: not that we are crucifying Him in the present moment, but that we have chosen it in our pasts.

No - Benedictgal has it right. We are not play-acting. We are not narrating a story. We are not recalling a past sin that we committed before. This is us, choosing in the present moment, to crucify Christ.

 

[cosfini05]

I don’t understand what is so difficult about this? Is reading the crowd part uncomfortable for some? Maybe.

But is is a discipline for us to partake in it. If nothing else, that is the reason we should read it.

 

[Eliza10]

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.

I see you are scolding me. And trying to induce guilt. And its not a right way of thinking or being. And believe it or not, its not our Church’s way of going about things. Though some in the Chruch do, in order to further their own agenda.

 

[Eliza10]

I don’t understand what is so difficult about this? Is reading the crowd part uncomfortable for some? Maybe.

But is is a discipline for us to partake in it. If nothing else, that is the reason we should read it.

Disciplines change. The Church tries things and sometimes realizes they are giving the wrong message. After Vatican II a LOT of things were tried in Masses and found to be offending, and changed. It is okay for us to be in touch with our consciences in Church. We do have them, and the Church does not stand in a a substitute between our conscience and God. When the Church has a controversial teaching, She always teaches it well and completely explains it so it can be understood. Not this one, though, which tells me its a newer invention. And its OKAY for me to be uncomfortable with it.

 

[Eliza10]

One year my little granddaughter started crying and sobbing. She was only three and thought SHE killed Jesus. So yes I also dislike this.

Out of the mouths of babes.

 

[Eliza10]

I don’t see the connection between reading a script, e.g. the part of The Crowd, and feeling the same way they did. In a stage drama, would you feel like a murderer if you said the words spoken by “the murderer”? I think not. Would you have murder in your heart? I think not. Suppose you played the part of the Pope in a drama. Would you actually be the Pope. I would quite emphatically state that no, you would not be. You are playing a part, a role, which is not you. Someone has to be The Crowd. A solitary voice from one volunteer would not be a crowd.
To utter words and not believe in them in your own heart, is no contradiction whatsoever. Every actor and actress does the same thing on a daily basis.

We are not all actors. And I think its not appropriate for us ALL to be asked to participate in the Mass as an actor repeating such vile words.

 

[Eliza10]

And yet, we are continually being reminded that the Liturgy is not the place for stage dramas, because in the Liturgy, we are supposed to mean the words that we pray and say, to make ourselves spiritually present to the events of the Mass.

Exactly. So that’s why its so uncomfortable - at Mass I am meaning the words I say. Why this one exception on Palm Sunday? Its not consistent and I think the Church will change this, as your Diocese wisely did. Does you Diocese do other wise things?.

 

[Eliza10]

…

This was written back ni 2005 by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. While he does not explicitly mention the reading of the Passion into parts, it is implied that the “crowd” is us.
…

Your quotes from our Popes former works are wonderful but they do not make your point. As I said before, you are preaching to the choir when you talk about how we are all sinners and Jesus needed to die for us. No one is refuting that.

You personally see yelling “Crucify Him!” to be a direct connection to all those great truths. I don’t. There is no logic to it.

To me, this is so much like Evangelicals hauling out loads of Bible verses to explain why you shouldn’t be Catholic. The verses are wonderful, but they don’t make their point.

 

[Eliza10]

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.)

I agree, and this is how I try to live. The Bible tells us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Be plain and straight and mean what we say. I feel I betray this truth when i say that part in the Passion. I don’t mean those words, why should I say them.

 

[Eliza10]

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?

Now that’s logic. And it feels like the opposite of virtue, and that makes me uncomfortable.

 

[EasterJoy]

Now that’s logic. And it feels like the opposite of virtue, and that makes me uncomfortable.

Are you saying that the experience of taking the part of the crowd during the reading of the Passion makes you more likely to sin against Him in the future? Do you know anyone who has had that experience? My experience has been very much to the contrary.

So: what is logical about expecting a result that is the reverse of what people actually experience?

OTOH, avoiding uncomfortable experiences that force us to confront our complicity with the Crucifixion…well, that can be another thing. There are all sorts of reasons one might want to avoid that. Some of them tender-hearted, which is fine, but some are not virtuous in the least.

Likewise, it is not logical to conclude that what feels uncomfortable must not be virtuous. Our consciences and our comfort levels are not the same thing, you would not argue that.

It is one thing to say that taking the part of the crowd makes you personally feel uncomfortable. OK, it makes you uncomfortable. Some people are uncomfortable receiving the Eucharist, because they realize how unworthy they are to do any such thing. Saying that it’s a sin to do it or that doing it encourages sin is unfounded and therefore strays a bit towards the uncharitable.

You have no evidence whatsoever of any connection between taking the part of the crowd and the promotion of any personal desire to offend Jesus. You certainly won’t find a good theologian who will tell you that. Yet you protest that Benedictgal has no proof? She’s the one following the rubrics! Why should the burden of proof be on her?

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t mean those words, why should I say them.

Why should Jesus have insisted that John give him a baptism of repentance? That is the exact meaning everyone else who went through it put on the ritual. Why was that not duplicitous of Him to do that? Why should He have insisted on doing that?

 

[Eliza10]

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…

I did not think you would have thought Our Lady spoke those words. The idea of Our Lady at Mass proclaiming the part of the crowd saying, “Crucify Him!” is what offends me.

 

[Digitonomy]

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…

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

I would be interested to read support for your apparent claim that during the Liturgy of the Word we are not just mentally, but metaphysically transported to the setting of the reading.

 

[Eliza10]

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?..

We are only protesting that the part of the worshiping assembly should be assigned is the part of the accusers who want to see Jesus killed. We are not protesting that the scripture is read. Hope that’s clear now. And if its to be acted I am sure there are people who would volunteer to act it.

 

[Eliza10]

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!”.

There sure is!

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…

Yes.

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.

And that’s exactly what it feels like. And that’s okay with many here, because they turn it into an acknowledgement of their own sin. But that is a theological leap that is not logical for me to make and does not feel true.