Fighting over liturgy distorts purpose of Mass, papal liturgist says

[deaconjohnO]

Pope Saint John Paul II determined that the authentic interpretation of Canon 230 was that girls and women should not have been precluded from serving Mass.

This, the authentic interpretation of the law, was to be implemented in my diocese immediately, with no resistance, but rather with complete acceptance that this was what was to be done because of the pope’s authoritative interpretation.

Are you saying your ordinary “mandated” female servers? Interesting it was my understanding that the parish pastor could not be compelled to utilize females for serving at the altar. This document which further Clarified “the pope’s authoritative interpretation” stated so in saying that “nor require priests to make use of female altar servers”…“the laity do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such services by the Sacred Pastors”

I’m fairly certain that the Holy See has given the instructions that the bishop may permit the use of female altar severs but not mandate the use.

 

[zz912]

We are not only happy with the numbers of young people who are engaged and remain engaged across the years – and especially to see the young people of years past be the young adults who are active as our next generation of laity engaged in the lay ministries in our parishes – we are most happy, too, with our vocation numbers for the diocesan presbyterate as well as for consecrated life.

Well then you are wildly outside of the Bell Curve and standard deviation from most dioceses in the US and western world. I wish you much success if you are seeing such tremendously different results.

 

[deaconjohnO]

My experience with them has been that they are very “teen”. I am too old and set to enjoy them, at least with what little exposure I have had. It is not my type of music. Yet the reverence was clear in the eyes of those young people (after the electric guitars and drums were done). They worshiped in the presence of the Lord.

So, when I have to go to such a Mass, I will go. I darn sure would never presume that the priest in that town did not know what was best for his parish, and his youth, much less that my opinion of the matter was of any value.

The idea of “contemporary music” is a strange one. Anyone who has direct relationships with teens (and I have 4 of them) know that yesterdays musical fad may actually be yesterday with kids. I question whether today’s lifeteen music is actually contemporary in the minds of the attendees.

 

[pnewton]

The idea of “contemporary music” is a strange one. Anyone who has direct relationships with teens (and I have 4 of them) know that yesterdays musical fad may actually be yesterday with kids. I question whether today’s lifeteen music is actually contemporary in the minds of the attendees.

This is why the priest is best able to guide the liturgy. Blanket statement, especially those from afar and over the internet, lack knowledge needed to determine what is most prudent.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The idea of “contemporary music” is a strange one. Anyone who has direct relationships with teens (and I have 4 of them) know that yesterdays musical fad may actually be yesterday with kids. I question whether today’s lifeteen music is actually contemporary in the minds of the attendees.

Agreed!

I would worry about music at Mass becoming Hip/Hop Rap style.

I think that would be the great divide for me.

Jim

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Are you saying your ordinary “mandated” female servers? Interesting it was my understanding that the parish pastor could not be compelled to utilize females for serving at the altar. This document which further Clarified “the pope’s authoritative interpretation” stated so in saying that “nor require priests to make use of female altar servers”…“the laity do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such services by the Sacred Pastors”

I’m fairly certain that the Holy See has given the instructions that the bishop may permit the use of female altar severs but not mandate the use.

Deacon…frankly I am perplexed by many statements I read from you on this forum as well as expressions that you employ.

There was no need for the bishop to go beyond articulating his vision for what this long awaited permission meant for girls and women of the diocese to serve at the altar. It was something seen as long overdue by the presbyterate, above all those priests who had been appointed by the bishop to be parish priests, at the point the decision was issued in 1994. Not only was there no resistance whatsoever from those with cura animarum to a universal embrace of it, there was a rush to do so. The backbone of our volunteers in the parishes were – and are – women, after all.

The simple vision, memorably articulated by the bishop in the wake of the decision, was quite well understood and it was embraced above all by the parish priests, who were in any event of the same mind as to the significance and import of this decision.

But this is so often the case, Deacon, in dioceses. That is why I am perplexed. If your bishop says to you, Deacon, that it is even his preference that X be implemented, then X should be implemented by your glad embrace of it without your bishop having to say one word more.

I hope you are fortunate enough to be incardinated both in a diocese in which there is unanimity between the bishop and his presbyterate and a diocese with a presbyterate that has a unanimity of thought and of purpose and of vision.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well then you are wildly outside of the Bell Curve and standard deviation from most dioceses in the US and western world. I wish you much success if you are seeing such tremendously different results.

We are hardly “wildly outside of the Bell Curve”

By virtue of a lot of hard work, beginning with the leadership of the bishops over the years they governed the diocese and many others of lesser position that the diocese has been/is blessed with, the diocese has been in a positive position in terms of youth involvement, retention of youth, as well as vocations both to our diocese and to the institutes of consecrated life associated with the diocese at a rate that is sustaining them.

It has been a joy to see youth that one baptised and prepared for Confirmation growing to young adulthood and taking their place in lay involvement in their parish…but that is hardly a unique or rare experience.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My experience with them has been that they are very “teen”. I am too old and set to enjoy them, at least with what little exposure I have had. It is not my type of music. Yet the reverence was clear in the eyes of those young people (after the electric guitars and drums were done). They worshiped in the presence of the Lord.

So, when I have to go to such a Mass, I will go. I darn sure would never presume that the priest in that town did not know what was best for his parish, and his youth, much less that my opinion of the matter was of any value.

Well, to be clear, I was Presider at many liturgies over the decades that did not necessarily suit my personal tastes…but that was not the criteria to be applied. That, liturgically, is an entirely different question. A priest imposing his personal aesthetics upon a grouping of the faithful simply because they are his personal aesthetics should be absolutely abhorrent.

I would always say to seminarians that, as a priest, you may find yourself trinating on a Sunday with your first Mass being in Latin with the schola, your second Mass being either with the charismatics or with a youth pilgrimage, and your third Mass being with our diocese’s expatriate group from Africa doing an inculturated liturgy…and you will have to embrace each as your very own.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, to be clear, I was Presider at many liturgies over the decades that did not necessarily suit my personal tastes…but that was not the criteria to be applied. That, liturgically, is an entirely different question. A priest imposing his personal aesthetics upon a grouping of the faithful simply because they are his personal aesthetics should be absolutely abhorrent.

I would always say to seminarians that, as a priest, you may find yourself trinating on a Sunday with your first Mass being in Latin with the schola, your second Mass being either with the charismatics or with a youth pilgrimage, and your third Mass being with our diocese’s expatriate group from Africa doing an inculturated liturgy…and you will have to embrace each as your very own.

But as a priest, you wouldn’t take it upon yourself to ad lib an entire Mass, would you, Father? And if you were to advise somebody whose priest does do that, and has been told by the priest that “I do this so that people have full participation” and is convinced that he has the right to do this. . . would you advise that person to just smile and accept because no matter how many years this priest has his bully pulpit, nor how many people are presented with this and told it is authentic liturgy, hey, it is what it is, not worth making a stand for, because one is going ‘against a priest?’

 

[Don_Ruggero]

But as a priest, you wouldn’t take it upon yourself to ad lib an entire Mass, would you, Father? And if you were to advise somebody whose priest does do that, and has been told by the priest that “I do this so that people have full participation” and is convinced that he has the right to do this. . . would you advise that person to just smile and accept because no matter how many years this priest has his bully pulpit, nor how many people are presented with this and told it is authentic liturgy, hey, it is what it is, not worth making a stand for, because one is going ‘against a priest?’

There are questions – and, more to the point, ways of posing questions – that merit being met simply by silence…

 

[pianistclare]

Sigh. This all over again?
First of all there is no such thing as a LifeTeen Mass.
LifeTeen is a curriculum. A great one. It is copyrighted and approved by the USCCB.
It has an emphasis on Eucharist and Adoration, as well as the love of Our Lady.
any parishes CALLTHEMSELVES LIFETEEN but in reality are doing their own thing.
No one who has ever actually read their lesson plans has any concerns, as there are extensive CCC references, and Scripture passages to support all of the teaching.
If some places do not implement the program properly, one cannot say LifeTeen is bad.
Music Directors who, under the direction of their pastors (and believe me, the Pastors indeed do have the final say) who use and present "contemporary music do so because they believe the people like it. Some don’t. It’s something to take up with the pastor.

Liturgy experts in the pew and people who are not catechists in the trenches love to criticize. That’s what makes our jobs so hard. Everyone thinks they know better than their priest.
Which is pretty evident here.

You can either try to learn from your pastor, or you can sit there and be mad.
It’s up to you.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Sigh. This all over again?
First of all there is no such thing as a LifeTeen Mass.
LifeTeen is a curriculum. A great one. It is copyrighted and approved by the USCCB.
It has an emphasis on Eucharist and Adoration, as well as the love of Our Lady.
any parishes CALLTHEMSELVES LIFETEEN but in reality are doing their own thing.
No one who has ever actually read their lesson plans has any concerns, as there are extensive CCC references, and Scripture passages to support all of the teaching.
If some places do not implement the program properly, one cannot say LifeTeen is bad.
Music Directors who, under the direction of their pastors (and believe me, the Pastors indeed do have the final say) who use and present "contemporary music do so because they believe the people like it. Some don’t. It’s something to take up with the pastor.

Liturgy experts in the pew and people who are not catechists in the trenches love to criticize. That’s what makes our jobs so hard. Everyone thinks they know better than their priest.
Which is pretty evident here.

You can either try to learn from your pastor, or you can sit there and be mad.
It’s up to you.

Yes to all.

Adding that you can always attend a different parish.

Also adding which is better: 500 young people start attending mass and the sacraments again or a few people have a “more pleasant mass experience?”

 

[Convert_in_99]

You’re so correct. It’s right up there with “clown Masses” as another utterly overused cliché.

Clown masses? Really people? :dts:

 

[Jon_Mallory]

:slapfight: this thread…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There are questions – and, more to the point, ways of posing questions – that merit being met simply by silence…

I apologize if I offended you. I did not mean to do so. But really, Father, there is no way of posing this question --and it is a real question, affecting real people-- that I could think of otherwise. Obviously that says I’m a bad communicator, but for all that, I’m truly looking for an answer for a situation that is breaking the hearts of me and my family.

Again, I apologize for whatever I said badly.

 

[Convert_in_99]

:slapfight: this thread…

It seems to be the main form of communication on here these days.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

But as a priest, you wouldn’t take it upon yourself to ad lib an entire Mass, would you, Father? And if you were to advise somebody whose priest does do that, and has been told by the priest that “I do this so that people have full participation” and is convinced that he has the right to do this. . . would you advise that person to just smile and accept because no matter how many years this priest has his bully pulpit, nor how many people are presented with this and told it is authentic liturgy, hey, it is what it is, not worth making a stand for, because one is going ‘against a priest?’

Well…given your last post, I will answer in the hope that it may be helpful…if not to you, then perhaps it will be to someone else.

And actually, in answer to something you just posted, there are indeed ways to reasonably and civilly ask about and discuss liturgical matters with a parish priest and then with a diocesan official…I sat, off and on, in a chancery across the long years…but it is assuredly not the way you just tried to do it with me.

I can also plainly tell you that there are certainly ways not to do it – unless you want to effectively close that channel of communication permanently.

1. “to ad lib an entire Mass” is really to perhaps not have celebrated Mass at all since, in essence, the Presider did not employ the lectionary or missal at all from no sign of the cross in the beginning through to no blessing and dismissal ar the end…to ad lib an entire Mass means absolutely nothing conformed to the texts. If the priest is actually doing that, then you contact the bishop and you say that.

Of course, if that had been reported to me but, after an investigation that involved speaking with the person reporting and then with the priest, the deacon, and others from the parish, and finding the person misrepresented the situation – and the priest did not ad lib the entire Mass but, let us say, changed some number of words here and there – there would have been no second chance to talk to me again, ever. Whereas, if that person had honestly and accurately related what was happening, it would be a wholly different matter.

It is rather like a recent case to which I responded involving “denial of the Eucharist”. “Denial of the Eucharist” is a very specific phrase…it is an allegation with very specific canonical overtones. To invoke it is the equivalent to pulling an alarm lever. Denial of the Eucharist does not mean “I did not get to receive in the way I wished” or “I did not get to receive from the person I wished” or “I did not get to have the posture I wished.”

Again, such a finding. that one of the latter three was what was really meant, would simply result in the person who made a denial of Eucharist claim being informed that what they had made was nothing short of a false allegation because of mischaracterisation. Period. And the discussion would, again, end there.

So now we have upon the table for contemplation a report about words and a report about actions. What one says and how one chooses to say it is profoundly significant. As of course is the distinction between what may actually be happening as opposed to what is supposed to be happening in the moment(s) being considered.

When one is reporting something that constitutes a serious allegation, the allegation has to be accurate in the facts it presents, accurate in the wrong-doing that is being alleged and accurate in its characterisation.

1. So, you have talked to the priest, you indicate, and he has answered. Whatever actually is the issue(s), you are not satisfied with the priest’s response. You have every right to speak to an official of the diocese. To do so effectively is to neither overstate the matter(s) or understate the matter(s) but educing them precisely as well as concisely.
2. Ultimately, the bishop of the diocese is the supreme moderator of the liturgy in his diocese, according to the norms of law. And he is the ultimate shepherd of his diocese, for both his priests and his laity, under the Pope.

I can think back to experiences in years past where I would field complaints to the bishop concerning priests doing things that “were not in the book” but the priests were choosing options that were, in fact, perfectly legitimate, even if not options that I myself would have chosen. That wasn’t the issue…it was their prerogative, which they legitimately used.

The way I dealt with different situations was as unique as the situations…some required an intervention because it was a significant issue…some required advice…some were, frankly, inconsequential idiosyncracies…from the perspective of a liturgist, which is why I was sent in to evaluate the situation. And frankly, not every norm and every rubric or, for that matter, every canon carries the same weight.

I can also remember cases where the matter was outside what the norm strictly foresaw but within the prerogative of the bishop’s discretion to make allowance…and the matter went to the bishop with his decision favouring the priest in 9 out of 10 cases.

1. Using pejorative images or expressions or sarcasm will not result in a meaningful dialogue but will quickly end it.

In any event, the person to seek clarification from is not someone on an internet forum. It is the officials of your own diocese…presuming that the channel of communication is still open to you. They are the only ones, under the Holy See, who can adjudicate the matter.

At the end, do I agree with Monsignor Marini’s counsel in the article? Absolutely. He is quite a remarkable and gifted ecclesiastic. I think his advice was exactly correct.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well…given your last post, I will answer in the hope that it may be helpful…if not to you, then perhaps it will be to someone else.

And actually, in answer to something you just posted, there are indeed ways to reasonably and civilly ask about and discuss liturgical matters with a parish priest and then with a diocesan official…I sat, off and on, in a chancery across the long years…but it is assuredly not the way you just tried to do it with me.

I can also plainly tell you that there are certainly ways not to do it – unless you want to effectively close that channel of communication permanently.

1. “to ad lib an entire Mass” is really to perhaps not have celebrated Mass at all since, in essence, the Presider did not employ the lectionary or missal at all from no sign of the cross in the beginning through to no blessing and dismissal ar the end…to ad lib an entire Mass means absolutely nothing conformed to the texts. If the priest is actually doing that, then you contact the bishop and you say that.

Of course, if that had been reported to me but, after an investigation that involved speaking with the person reporting and then with the priest, the deacon, and others from the parish, and finding the person misrepresented the situation – and the priest did not ad lib the entire Mass but, let us say, changed some number of words here and there – there would have been no second chance to talk to me again, ever. Whereas, if that person had honestly and accurately related what was happening, it would be a wholly different matter.

It is rather like a recent case to which I responded involving “denial of the Eucharist”. “Denial of the Eucharist” is a very specific phrase…it is an allegation with very specific canonical overtones. To invoke it is the equivalent to pulling an alarm lever. Denial of the Eucharist does not mean “I did not get to receive in the way I wished” or “I did not get to receive from the person I wished” or “I did not get to have the posture I wished.”

Again, such a finding. that one of the latter three was what was really meant, would simply result in the person who made a denial of Eucharist claim being informed that what they had made was nothing short of a false allegation because of mischaracterisation. Period. And the discussion would, again, end there.

So now we have upon the table for contemplation a report about words and a report about actions. What one says and how one chooses to say it is profoundly significant. As of course is the distinction between what may actually be happening as opposed to what is supposed to be happening in the moment(s) being considered.

When one is reporting something that constitutes a serious allegation, the allegation has to be accurate in the facts it presents, accurate in the wrong-doing that is being alleged and accurate in its characterisation.

1. So, you have talked to the priest, you indicate, and he has answered. Whatever actually is the issue(s), you are not satisfied with the priest’s response. You have every right to speak to an official of the diocese. To do so effectively is to neither overstate the matter(s) or understate the matter(s) but educing them precisely as well as concisely.
2. Ultimately, the bishop of the diocese is the supreme moderator of the liturgy in his diocese, according to the norms of law. And he is the ultimate shepherd of his diocese, for both his priests and his laity, under the Pope.

I can think back to experiences in years past where I would field complaints to the bishop concerning priests doing things that “were not in the book” but the priests were choosing options that were, in fact, perfectly legitimate, even if not options that I myself would have chosen. That wasn’t the issue…it was their prerogative, which they legitimately used.

The way I dealt with different situations was as unique as the situations…some required an intervention because it was a significant issue…some required advice…some were, frankly, inconsequential idiosyncracies…from the perspective of a liturgist, which is why I was sent in to evaluate the situation. And frankly, not every norm and every rubric or, for that matter, every canon carries the same weight.

I can also remember cases where the matter was outside what the norm strictly foresaw but within the prerogative of the bishop’s discretion to make allowance…and the matter went to the bishop with his decision favouring the priest in 9 out of 10 cases.

1. Using pejorative images or expressions or sarcasm will not result in a meaningful dialogue but will quickly end it.

In any event, the person to seek clarification from is not someone on an internet forum. It is the officials of your own diocese…presuming that the channel of communication is still open to you. They are the only ones, under the Holy See, who can adjudicate the matter.

At the end, do I agree with Monsignor Marini’s counsel in the article? Absolutely. He is quite a remarkable and gifted ecclesiastic. I think his advice was exactly correct.

Dear Father, I thank you very much. I think I have been too close to the situation too long and without somebody with authority to give me helpful feedback and guidance. I do apologize and again, you have been extremely helpful.

I also agree with Monsignor, which is why this has been so hard. Just getting over the first, “but he’s a priest, am I even supposed to question these actions” was so hard that I think that also affected how I communicate what happens. With my nature tending to the punny/sarcastic anyway, I think that spilled over too much.

Thank you again for your kind, thoughtful, and very helpful words of advice.

May God bless you and all priests. You are truly a gift to us and we thank you.

 

[zz912]

We are hardly “wildly outside of the Bell Curve”

By virtue of a lot of hard work, beginning with the leadership of the bishops over the years they governed the diocese and many others of lesser position that the diocese has been/is blessed with, the diocese has been in a positive position in terms of youth involvement, retention of youth, as well as vocations both to our diocese and to the institutes of consecrated life associated with the diocese at a rate that is sustaining them.

It has been a joy to see youth that one baptised and prepared for Confirmation growing to young adulthood and taking their place in lay involvement in their parish…but that is hardly a unique or rare experience.

Sadly Father, the reality is that the Catholic Church in America is imploding. The numbers from even the surveys done by the USCCB support this conclusion. That is why many dioceses are working on plans to close parishes by the dozens, even though the “Catholic” population in America is rising.

 

[zz912]

Yes to all.

Adding that you can always attend a different parish.

Also adding which is better: 500 young people start attending mass and the sacraments again or a few people have a “more pleasant mass experience?”

The concern is not about a “more pleasant mass experience”, but whether the young people are receiving the Catholic faith or are they being pandered to. There is real concern that by organizing the Mass to conform to their whims, the implicit message they are receiving is that Mass is about THEIR entertainment, instead of worship of God.