B
buffalo
Guest
I had a real problem when a Priest told me to use contraception. Should I have obeyed him?
- Status
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I had a real problem when a Priest told me to use contraception. Should I have obeyed him?
Would you please stay on subject? Raising irrelevant red herrings defeat the chance to have a conversation on the subject at hand. If this is relevant in this matter, you must think you now have a right to ignore a Priest on everything.
B
buffalo
Guest
If this is relevant in this matter, you must think you now have a right to ignore a Priest on everything.
No. It surely does not mean a Priest on wrong on everything. But it sure does goes to credibility, on other things. Most faithful depend on the integrity of their Pastor and I would hate to think they would then have to check up on everything he says and does. That is very damaging and unhealthy to the Church. Maybe we should have a poll showing the relationship between heterodox Priests and hand holding and clapping. I bet there is a sure correlation…
That is why orthodoxy is so very important to the health of the Church.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
I had a real problem when a Priest told me to use contraception. Should I have obeyed him?
He said this during mass, or in a one-on-one conversation.
You tend to mix apples and oranges in order to make a point.
Using contraception would have tarnished your soul big time.
Applauding will do no such thing in any way shape or form.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
And when the Church intends, per the presiding priest who has the authority of the Church during the Mass, for the entire congregation to applaud, then applaud.
Again, you miss the point that people are not worshiping each other through their applause, they are acknowledging and praising God’s work accomplished through His humble servants.
For some reason you choose to ignore that differentiation.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Please just stay on subject. We don’t know your Priest. It is nonsense to have any discussion if the first and foremost assumption is the Priest is “heterodox”. In the scheme of things, this issue in the context of violations of Church Teaching is trivial. If he is willing to advocate contraception, the Church’s views on this matter wouldn’t even register. At some point, you have to agree to submit and obey your Pastor. If you can’t do it on this issue, you need to find a new Pastor. This has become an impediment to your entire attitude and ability to submit to the Church.
The purpose of this thread was to discuss if there was any reason to ever have clapping at any Mass. Many of us outlined examples and circumstances where they were appropriate. Attempts to divert it to liturgical dance or now contraception are a diversion and prevent intelligent discussion of the matter at hand.
Not once has one person point blank said:
- The Archbishop and member of the Curia is wrong to have led a standing ovation at the ordination of a new Archbishop to show affection, appreciation and support.
- A Bishop is wrong to lead an ovation for newly confirmed Catholics to show affection, appreciation and support.
- A Priest is wrong to lead an ovation of new 1st Communicants to show affection, appreciation and support.
- A Pastor is wrong to lead an ovation in recognition of his Associates ordination anniversary to show affection, appreciation and support.
Instead, the responses to our points have been about clapping during homilies, contraception, liturgical dance, and weekly birthday announcements of the congregation.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Yes, I understand that clearly. But in the context of this discussion, since there is so much misunderstanding and controversy, and also because a previous poster mentioned that it *is * in the GIRM, I think it would be good to be able to read that text.
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**Please stay on thread subject which is: Hand Clapping at Mass **
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
May lead, yes.
Will always lead, no.
Where it does, then you do as paramedicgirl and buffalo do, you approach your priest respectfully outside of Mass to help him to recognize how the applause thing in your parish are getting out of hand.
S
stargazer257
Guest
:clapping:
I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist
.
Take a cleansing breath guys, the differences here are minor. We may have to agree to disagree. Sometimes that is the best course of action.
Both sides of the dominant issue in this thread have been adequately presented, many times over. I believe that no one is going to “budge” from where they stand on this because both sides make good points, and there is nothing concrete enough to sway us one way or the other. Step back a bit and really try to see where the other is coming from and you can see that they make good points. I can accept that, and I’m going to have to leave it at that.
In Peace, SG257
I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist
.Take a cleansing breath guys, the differences here are minor. We may have to agree to disagree. Sometimes that is the best course of action.
Both sides of the dominant issue in this thread have been adequately presented, many times over. I believe that no one is going to “budge” from where they stand on this because both sides make good points, and there is nothing concrete enough to sway us one way or the other. Step back a bit and really try to see where the other is coming from and you can see that they make good points. I can accept that, and I’m going to have to leave it at that.
In Peace, SG257
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Except that your reason is not right. But you do have the right to judge in error with what reason you’ve been given.
As for not obeying what you understand to be wrong, I’d suggest the obligation is to obey and keep researching until you come to understand why it is right. (isn’t that what we tell all Catholics with regard to contraception?)
I am not in support of spontaneous applause. I’ve made that clear.
Since the priest did not ask for applause, invite the congregation to applaud or instruct the congregation to applaud, then no one should be applauding.
The priest takes the lead. We follow.
Well, duh. I specifically stated it was my perception. You were asking for clarification on the Jesus and me vs the Jesus and we statements so I offered insight. Where did I ever suggest it was fact?
This is where you are just wrong. Many saints defered to the directions of their superiors in Christ when they did not agree with the direction. The key lesson taught to our youngsters is to obey and pray that the leaders come to see the error of their ways.
You aren’t under the rubrics. The priest is.
And the rubrics do not prohibit clapping either.
Your job is to respect and obey the magesterium.
If the priest is wrong, then point it out to him outside mass and help him to see the light.
Your quotation was excellent, by the way.
The thing is, the priest is not damaging the mass by asking for applause at appropriate times for appropriate reasons no matter how much you don’t like it. This is why I don’t understand why you insist you are obliged to disregard his call to applaud since it is not an abuse.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sometimes one has to broaden the context to make a point. I reserve that right. I have no intention of hijacking the thread.
Focusing so tightly on if there was a specific document or not as to clapping is legalism and how innovation is able to contaminate the Church. It is a loophole. An argument for innovation must include custom and tradition. Your arguments go against what I believe is “the mind of the Church” and Tradition.
From - The Mass of Vatican II - Fr Fessio
No Innovations Unless the Good of the Church Requires Them
But back to the Council. In the same paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14, the Council continues: “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.” So the Council itself defines the primary aim of liturgical renewal: full, conscious and active participation. How does the Council initially intend for the aim to be achieved? That, also, is not something we have to guess at or speculate on: “And, therefore, pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it by means of the necessary instruction in all their pastoral work.” The Council’s idea is clear: the liturgy is to be renewed by promoting more active participation through the means of greater education. Nothing whatsoever is said here about any kind of changes or reform of the rite itself. Later, when changes are discussed, the Council states in paragraph 23: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.” So no changes unless there is a real, proven, demonstrable need.
Paragraph 23 continues: “And care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” Organic growth — like a plant, a flower, a tree — not something constructed by an intellectual elite, not things fabricated and tacked on, or brought back from ten centuries ago, or fifteen centuries ago, but an organic growth. That’s what the Council itself said.
Paragraph 48 begins the chapter on the Mass. And the title of this chapter is interesting. It’s not called “The Eucharist” or “The Mass”; it’s called “The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist.” Even in the chapter title, you have the sense that what’s important is mystery, sacredness, awe, the transcendence of God.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
But that’s just it - it’s not our place to raise the exception to the rule or change it in any way, shape or form. That is reserved for the magesterium and until that happens our place is to obey the standards already set in place.
Fix, the standard for applause at appropriate times in the mass for the appropriate reasons is in place. You can move to change it by writing your priests, bishops, Rome but until it changes you’re called to respect and obey.
B
buffalo
Guest
We all are under the rubrics. They address the posture of the people many many times as well as other things…
B
buffalo
Guest
The norm is no clapping during Mass. It is not prescribed.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
And this is where I get confused.
By “'today’s” I’ve got to figure you mean “in my parish” because ‘horizontal worship’ does not change it’s meaning from day to day, from time to time. It is what it is.
But I could see where in your parish the people there miss the boat on that and I suspect they don’t even know what horizontal worship is, they seem too busy patting each other on the back. I really feel for you being in such a shallow community. Thank God you’re there though. You are a beacon for others like you, and a safe harbor.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
That would have been a good citation if we’d been discussing a priest choosing to add an additional reading to the Liturgy of the Word or perhaps consecrating the blood before the bread or something along those lines - which are innovations to the liturgy itself.
Applause at the end of mass at the discretion of the priest is not an innovation to the Liturgy in any way shape or form because it is done after the Mass.
The applause at JPII funeral was between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist - not during either. It’s one of the reasons the mass is designed with distinct movements toward the pinnacle of the Eucharist and then from there toward the community so that we may go out to love and serve the Lord. Such distinctions are to be used as pauses for reflection before moving on to the next part of the Mass - preparation. Well right before we are sent out to love and serve the Lord is an opportune time to recognize those among us who are living examples of how God works through them - and can also work through everyone else present.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I’ll remember that you believe you can introduce any fallacious argument you want to the debate to confuse matters. It will help me in future posts and threads.
All I have for evidence that it is proper is that I’ve seen it at a Mass celebrated by the Pope and fully planned by the Vatican (not something that happened on a trip overseas etc. and done in his home country) , an Archbishop and member of the Curia do it, my Bishop do it, and my Pastor do it. I have absolutely no evidence that they advocate or participate in any illicit innovations or liturgical abuses. You have provided nothing that these men with ecclesiastical authority are committed an abuse.
You call it an innovation. Do you have documentation that the expressions of appreciation and affection that we’ve tried to discuss (not your attempts to distract and obfuscate) are not long-term traditions? As far as I know, these could be Traditions that go back centuries.
You have the last word.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Ok, I’ll take your word for it because I’m to weary to look it up.
I bet it doesn’t say we can’t applaud when the priest directs us to, though.
You and I both should be able to concede that it isn’t expressly prohibited nor is it expressly required.
Where you and I should be able to agree to disagree is the call for respectful obedience to the magesterium over our own reasoning.
What do you say?
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
P.S. Buffalo, while you think it pertinent to add “examples” as immediataly above outlined to make your point, I would like you to say that the above specific examples which are the point of this thread are wrong. Otherwise, I’ll assume that no answer is concurence they are acceptable to the Church (your personal desires and wishes notwithstanding).
- Status