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

[Eliza10]

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?

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Because baptism is not only about the washing away of sins; it is also about the opening up of the New Covenant. By having Himself baptized, He baptized the waters of repentance and made them a means of entry into His Covenant of grace.

He was not in any way pretending that he was having His sins washed away. There was no “play-acting” involved with what He was doing.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Even if we are metaphysically transported, we don’t become different people, and we should still act and react in non-sinful ways, even if it is only in our own mind’s eye.

 

[Eliza10]

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?

No.

.

…OTOH, avoiding uncomfortable experiences that force us to confront our complicity with the Crucifixion…well, that can be another thing.

It sounds like you are saying its a given that shouting “Crucify Him!” in Mass is related to one’s complicty with the Crucifixion. I disagree. However if one wants to make that leap for themselves personally, I don’t see anything wrong or immoral about that. Just please don’t tell me I am supposed to think like you on that point.

…It is one thing to say that taking the part of the crowd makes you personally feel uncomfortable. OK, it makes you uncomfortable.

Yes and I said why and JMCrae’s reasons also explain it well. Clearly you are not grasping where my discomfort lies, though.

… Yet you protest that Benedictgal has no proof? She’s the one following the rubrics! Why should the burden of proof be on her?

JMCrae is following the rubrics too. If Benedictgal does not have a theologian to show me thats fine. I was just wondering if anyone could direct me to some theological discussion on it. Benedictgal is comfortable with what I am not comfortable with in this matter. We have a difference of opinion.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

With all due respect, as I read your statements, these are arrogant words. The fact that the Church retains the tradition of the manner in which the Passion is proclaimed should tell you something. Just because you feel uncomfortable about something, that does not make it sinful or wrong. It just means that you perhaps do not understand the signifcance of what we are doing.

While this many not necessarily be relevent to your question, this is a statement made by the USCCB regarding the proclamation of the Passion:

As the Church has always held, Christ freely suffered His Passion and death because of the sins of all, in order that all might be saved.

Thus, when we take part in the Passion by reading the parts that correspond to the crowd, we are simply voicing the fact that we, too, share culpability.

 

[Eliza10]

Because baptism is not only about the washing away of sins; it is also about the opening up of the New Covenant. By having Himself baptized, He baptized the waters of repentance and made them a means of entry into His Covenant of grace.

He was not in any way pretending that he was having His sins washed away. There was no “play-acting” involved with what He was doing.

Sounds like you are well-catechized!

 

[Eliza10]

With all due respect, as I read your statements, these are arrogant words. The fact that the Church retains the tradition of the manner in which the Passion is proclaimed should tell you something. Just because you feel uncomfortable about something, that does not make it sinful or wrong. It just means that you perhaps do not understand the signifcance of what we are doing.

Or, maybe because the tradition that came about after Vatican II has some fault with it. Maybe that, too. Liturgical dancing was big here in our Diocese even very recently. A lot of people were uncomfortable with it. Turns out, the Church now agrees.

You are judging my words to be arrogant but I simply have a conviction in my heart and I am not going to override it without something more because when the Church asks something of us She always gives reason. I appreciate your sharing your theological understanding, and it does give me useful insight into what other people are thinking, but it is not enough reason for me. I need catechism, and I need deeper or broader theological discussion on it.

I live in a Diocese where many things are out of order in every Sunday’s Masses… When something feels wrong there is usually a reason. You call it arrogance, I call it faith and fidelity. Respect for the Holy things of God.

I can respect that you have a different viewpoint than me. I hope you can respect that mine is different from yours.

 

[Digitonomy]

Even if we are metaphysically transported, we don’t become different people, and we should still act and react in non-sinful ways, even if it is only in our own mind’s eye.

On the other hand, if we are not metaphysically transported (as I contend), but only transported in mind and spirit just as we are when reading at home, there is nothing sinful in reading, saying, or acting out a part of the scripture so that it may make a deeper impression on us.

 

[benedictgal]

This is a snippet taken from an article that appeared in the Arlington Catholic, as posted on the website www.catholicexchange.com:

At Mass on Palm Sunday and at services again this afternoon, the congregation actively participates in the proclamation of the holy Gospel. Roles are formally assigned to the priest, lectors and the people assembled. The story unfolds before us once more. In memory and imagination the scenes play themselves out, as dialogue both familiar and disturbing, sounds on our lips.

This drama, we must realize, is merely a “re-enactment” of something over and dead. Those who celebrate Mass actually participate in the Last Supper and the Death of Jesus Christ on Good Friday. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, our living Lord is made truly present under the forms of bread and wine. Events of the past are by God’s power perpetuated as present realities. So complete and profound is our solidarity with Christ as members of His mystical Body, that His sufferings merit our salvation, and our lives are an extension of His in space and time. Thus, St. Paul (and we) are able to say, “In my own flesh I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His Body, the Church” (Col 1:24).

The drama of Christ’s life is “re-presented” in and through those who are members of His Body, the Church. As His baptized brothers and sisters, we are allowed some degree of freedom to choose our roles in His story. Perhaps we find ourselves bold and brave when the momentum is with us, but craven cowards when the winds shift — like Peter. Maybe we want to “play it safe,” steer clear of controversy, and compromise, even though innocents may suffer — like Pontius Pilate. Possibly we just want to be faceless members of the crowd, respecters of popular opinion who don’t want to be different — like the crowds who cried “Hosannah!” on Sunday and “Crucify Him!” a few days later. Or we might find ourselves hypocrites (like the Pharisees); sensualists (like Herod); just “doing our job” (like the Roman centurion); or confused and overwhelmed (like most of the apostles). There are the extraordinary roles — “sons (and daughters) of perdition” — (like Judas); or paragons of constancy — (like Mary, the holy women and John the beloved).

Even though I do not necessarily agree with the “over and dead” issue, brought up, iti does have some valid points.

 

[benedictgal]

Last night, I picked up a copy of an excellent book written by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a former Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and was subsequently ordained a priest. He was probably one of the most orthodox Catholic intellectuals, right up there with the late Avery Cardinal Dulles. The title of the book is “Death on a Friday Afternoon.”

The OP asked for something other than my opinion. Inasmuch as Fr. Neuhaus is not a Magesterial authority, there is something in his book that, I believe, addresses the issue even better than what I previously posted:

“Father, forgive them.” For whom does he pray forgiveness? For the leaders of his own people, a fragile, frightened establishment that could not abide the threat of the presence of a love so long delayed. For Pilate, forever wringing his hands, forever soiled. For the soldiers who did the deed, who wielded the whip, who drove the nails, who thrust the spear, it all being but a day’s work on foreign assignment, far from home. And for us he asks forgiveness, for we were there.

On the Sunday that begins Holy Week we read the passion story and come to the part where the crowd shouts, “Crucity him! Crucify him!” That part is read by the entire congregation, for we were there. The old spiritual asks “Where you there when they crucified my Lord?” Yes, we answer. Yes, we were there when we crucified our Lord.

This perhaps best sums up the argument as to why we should be reading our part in the Passion narrative, because, we do play an active, but, sad, role on Good Friday.

 

[Newbie2]

Thus, when we take part in the Passion by reading the parts that correspond to the crowd, we are simply voicing the fact that we, too, share culpability.

That’s an opinion, but liturgically that meaning is either hidden or absent. What’s not to say that somewhere along the line, somebody thought it was a good idea to include the congregation so they would not get bored?

 

[benedictgal]

That’s an opinion, but liturgically that meaning is either hidden or absent. What’s not to say that somewhere along the line, somebody thought it was a good idea to include the congregation so they would not get bored?

Interesting…

I have another book on the Passion by the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. However, I need to dig that one up. I remember reading where he also made the same argument about the faithful and the crowd.

 

[Eliza10]

This is a snippet taken from an article that appeared in the Arlington Catholic, as posted on the website www.catholicexchange.com:
…
Even though I do not necessarily agree with the “over and dead” issue, brought up, iti does have some valid points.

In that article, this stands out to me: " As His baptized brothers and sisters, we are allowed some degree of freedom to choose our roles in His story. " I appreciate that the acknowledgement that we have some freedom t choose our roles, vs. assigning us the worst role!

 

[Eliza10]

Last night, I picked up a copy of an excellent book written by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a former Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and was subsequently ordained a priest. …

“… On the Sunday that begins Holy Week we read the passion story and come to the part where the crowd shouts, “Crucity him! Crucify him!” That part is read by the entire congregation, for we were there. The old spiritual asks “Where you there when they crucified my Lord?” Yes, we answer. Yes, we were there when we crucified our Lord.”…

This perhaps best sums up the argument as to why we should be reading our part in the Passion narrative, because, we do play an active, but, sad, role on Good Friday.

I think we are all in agreement we play our part. It is interesting to see the comment from Fr. Neuhaus. I see he is just stating the practice, and apparently does not have the objection to it that I have (instead he seems neutral, or just accepting that this is the practice). I agree that “We were there.” We were there because Jesus took our sins with Him to the cross.

 

[benedictgal]

In that article, this stands out to me: " As His baptized brothers and sisters, we are allowed some degree of freedom to choose our roles in His story. " I appreciate that the acknowledgement that we have some freedom t choose our roles, vs. assigning us the worst role!

However, I don’t think that you are quite getting the point. The proclamation of the Passion does assign the part of the crowd to the faithful. Internally, you can be whomever you wish; however, as I read your post, you still seem to not understand that we share the same culpability as the crowds.

Maybe if you re-read the quote from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ book, that might help to better understand things.

 

[benedictgal]

I think we are all in agreement we play our part. It is interesting to see the comment from Fr. Neuhaus. I see he is just stating the practice, and apparently does not have the objection to it that I have (instead he seems neutral, or just accepting that this is the practice). I agree that “We were there.” We were there because Jesus took our sins with Him to the cross.

The crowds encompass the totality of the history of the family of man. I don’t think that Fr. Neuhaus was being neutral. He was stating it as it is.

 

[Eliza10]

What follows is Newbies’s commentin response to benedictgal’s: “Thus, when we take part in the Passion by reading the parts that correspond to the crowd, we are simply voicing the fact that we, too, share culpability.”]

That’s an opinion, but liturgically that meaning is either hidden or absent.

You are absolutely right in this.

What’s not to say that somewhere along the line, somebody thought it was a good idea to include the congregation so they would not get bored?

LOL, maybe thats all it is!

 

[RosalieM]

I’m in choir, and in my parish on Palm Sunday we don’t do the “crowd” response. However, on Good Friday during the school Passion play part of the function, we act as a sort of Greek chorus with responses in a spoken/sung manner.
I, too, am extremely uncomfortable saying/singing “Crucify him!” I don’t know if I can say it this year, as I am now prone to tears now more than I ever was with the Passion. There are some lines I didn’t sing in a song this year either, because it made me uncomfortable. It was very brief and not noticeable. It would have been more noticeable if I had made a fuss about it to other people.
I won’t be saying the words, “Crucify him”. I just can’t.
May you all have a blessed and inspiring Triduum. Happy Easter!

 

[Digitonomy]

Thus, when we take part in the Passion by reading the parts that correspond to the crowd, we are simply voicing the fact that we, too, share culpability.

Well-stated, and I think most would agree with that. But it’s one thing to say that we share culpability and are thus metaphorically part of the crowd, or metaphorically the ingrates in various scripture readings such as the prodigal son. It’s quite another to say that we are mystically or metaphysically transported to the scenes of these scriptures, just because they are read as part of a liturgy. I don’t see where any of the sources you’ve cited clearly make this leap that you’ve taken - it seem perfectly reasonable to read the statements in a metaphorical way.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

We don’t proclaim the words in the sense of ratifying them. We aren’t agreeing. We are proclaiming them in the sense of uncovering them, in the sense of “lest we forget”.

I tell you, if you asked Our Lady what the crowd said, she would say, “Crucify Him.” She would say it with the love and sadness one would have for one’s children, because the crowd are her children. She would not say, “Oh, I can’t even say the words, I am so different than they are.” Compassion does not talk like that. Love does not fear being associated with sinners.

Remember that this is the same crowd that only days later will hear Peter say, “…Jesus, whom you handed over and disowned in Pilate’s presence when Pilate was ready to release him. You disowned the Holy and Just One and preferred instead to be granted the release of a murderer. You put to death the Author of Life…yet I know brothers, that you acted out of ignorance, just as your leaders did…Therefore, reform your lives! Turn to God, that your sins may be wiped away!..” Note that Peter puts disowning and handing over in the same category. He does not distance what he did from what the crowd did. Yet at the Last Supper, he talked exactly as you are talking: Oh, no, I would never do such a thing.

And how do they respond? "…many of those who heard the speech believed; the number of men came to about five thousand. (Acts 3:12-4:4)

In other words, we are talking about a “crowd” that undoubtedly included future saints that far surpassed us in holiness, who pray for us now in Heaven. Let’s not sit on any high horse about being different than they were. We are NO different.

Our sins put the Lord on the Cross, just as surely as their shouts did. Our Lord and Our Lady, in contrast, never feared being mistaken for sinners, never feared being taken for something other than perfect. Our Lady was obedient to the task of being pregnant outside of wedlock. She did not go around telling people that she was innocent. Our Lord was obedient to being crucified alongside murderers. He did not shout to the crowd that he was different than the other convicted men were. They were obedient, and let people think what people would think.

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.

Are you saying that it was not your sins that put the Lord on the Cross?

We deserve to say those words. We deserve to say, “we are responsible” and “in this story, this was our part”.

We are not “metaphorically” like that crowd. We are every bit as guilty as that crowd…every bit!

If someone simply cannot say those words because they are too tender-hearted, that is fine. But let’s not have any nonsense about being different. We’re not. That is rightly our part, whether we can say it out loud or not. The whole point of Good Friday is not “oh, Lord, how sad it is that they did this to you!!” The whole point of Good Friday is “Lord, have mercy, for it was we who did this to you!!” Maybe you can’t say it, that is fine, but the shoe fits, make no mistake about that.