Has the new GIRM helped?

[Irish_Catholic]

JKirkLVNV:

Irish Catholic:

our new pastor is constantly trying to defy Rome.

How is he doing that? Have you contacted your bishop? You can also take it to the Holy See.

LOL !! How is he doing that?! Wow, well, this isn’t the forum or the thread to go into that (it would take waaay too long to list everything!)… But, yes, we’ve contacted our bishop, our archbishop, and the priest who takes care of assigning (or re-assigning) priests in our diocese (is that priest called a dean?). Our bishop sent us a letter back and he doesn’t care to do anything, the archbishop didn’t respond at all, and the other priest agreed that it was a serious matter and hopes somthing can be done. So, in other words, we’re stuck with this pastor for the next 6 years…

(btw, we also sent several letters to our pastor, heck, I PERSONALLY sent him a letter, and he hasn’t ever responded. Thankfully, due to some of the vocal higher-up lay people in our parish, some of the abuses have been corrected, but still, there’s no telling what’ll happen next.)

What else can we do but pray, and suck it up?:ehh:

 

[FrmrTrad]

JKirkLVNV:

Abuse SHOULD be corrected. There is ample evidence of abuse on this site, in the form of pictures/articles, etc. I personally have never seen “abuse”,

This is my experience as well. Abuse stories are common on the Internet, but surprisingly thin when examined: “abuse” sites are repetitive, focus often on conspiracy theories, and normally fail to relate to details that would affect the validity of the rite; i.e. they usually focus on matters that do not pertain to the form, matter, or intent.

“Intent” becomes the whipping boy, because “intent” is the least explicit and theologically evolved aspect of Eucharist as sacrament, although the basics of it have been repeated for centuries, as one can see in Denzinger. Liturgical details that differ from an idealized Tridentine mass are erroneously assumed to imply that the priest ‘lacks intent’ but this is not a meaningful use of “intent”: the priest must intend ‘to do what the Church does’, to repeat a common phrase. I have yet to meet a priest who suffers from unbelief, so they are all, in my experience, doing “what the Church does”, period. Even if they have altar girls wearing flip-flops handing the Eucharist to other lay people from a wooden bowl (to invent an example that would drive a traditionalist nuts).

For some commentators, anything differing from an idealized Tridentine mass qualifies as an “abuse”, such as a mass celebrated outdoors not in wartime, or a mass at which someone plays a guitar. I personally have never observed an abuse that would invalidate the eucharistic celebration. And I have attended more reverent masses in the rite of Paul VI than I can count or recall.

[traditionalists] complain about the Mass of Paul VI as though IT WAS ITSELF AN ABUSE!!! It isn’t and to suggest that it is ranks as heresy.

And this is a huge mistake on their part, as it is dogmatically incorrect to consider that the rite of mass could be problematic. This comes from the Council of Trent itself.

 

[sarcophagus]

What’s GIRM???

 

[rwoehmke]

sarcophagus:

What’s GIRM???

It is a general instruction on how the Mass is supposed to be celebrated. For my money it should be called the Germ as once it fell into the hands of our neo-pharisees we’ve had nothing but complaints, anger and divisiveness among our happy little parish. Ignorance was truly blessed and we could reverently participate in the Mass without being aware of all the mostly minor blemishes. Now we have to work really hard not to join the "Liturgy Police. Well in truth I suppose, being Catholics, if we didn’t have the GIRM we’d find something else to fight about. I am near 70 years old and I can still remember the nasty arguements and disagreements among our elders when I was but a child.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

LOL !! How is he doing that?! Wow, well, this isn’t the forum or the thread to go into that (it would take waaay too long to list everything!)… But, yes, we’ve contacted our bishop, our archbishop, and the priest who takes care of assigning (or re-assigning) priests in our diocese (is that priest called a dean?). Our bishop sent us a letter back and he doesn’t care to do anything, the archbishop didn’t respond at all, and the other priest agreed that it was a serious matter and hopes somthing can be done. So, in other words, we’re stuck with this pastor for the next 6 years…

What else can we do but pray, and suck it up?:ehh:

Gather up into one tidy packet the letters you sent to the priest, the bishop, and the archbishop, as well as the letters they sent you back. Send them all to (I forget the name of the congregation) to whichever congregation is in charge of the liturgy. I’m serious. To mail a letter to the Holy See, you mail it to the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, DC, marked to whomever you wish the letter to go (even the Holy Father).

 

[Yvonne_Angel]

I am not sure if our priests are using it. My ardent wish would be that whatever changes need to be made and are made would be the same at every Mass in every parish. It seems to be very confusing for the people in the pews when each priest does his own thing regarding many small details of the Mass. I find it distracting so I have my eyes closed during much of the Mass. Another ardent wish would be to have a little more silent moments between all the words and a shorter time for singing at Communion time so more meditation is possible. I also yearn to have bells at the time of elevation but I must admit that there is great reverence by the people at that time and it is very quiet. I guess I just love tradition. However, I am grateful for our beloved priests. Without them we would have no Mass and life would be desolate. Thank you Father, for being a priest! We love each one of you.

 

[davy39]

Agomemnon:

The only reason for the confusion is the fact that the Bishops and Priests have been working against Tradition and he faith for 30 years.

I don’t think it can be fixed. Restore the old mass so that remnant of the faithful might Christianize the world again.

No, no, I don’t want to go back to the days of the latin Mass, and gregorian chant. Keep the mass in the language of the people. Most of the people that want the “old mass” back weren’t even around before Vatican 2. One of the reasons for the english Mass was to incourage participation. It’s hard to participate when you can’t sing hardly any of the latin words. And don’t tell me about the missalette with latin on one page and the english on the other. They didn’t work back in the 50’s and they won’t work now.

 

[Robotics2ko]

davy39:

No, no, I don’t want to go back to the days of the latin Mass, and gregorian chant. Keep the mass in the language of the people. Most of the people that want the “old mass” back weren’t even around before Vatican 2. One of the reasons for the english Mass was to incourage participation. It’s hard to participate when you can’t sing hardly any of the latin words. And don’t tell me about the missalette with latin on one page and the english on the other. They didn’t work back in the 50’s and they won’t work now.

I wasn’t around before Vatican II. But doesn’t Vatican II stress Gregorian Chant and Latin? Sacrosanctum Concilium clearly states this

1. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.
2. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

1. (1) In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power to grant the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up in accordance with the provisions of article 36.
2. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

So apparently, Latin was supposed to be reserved in the Latin Rites, and Gregorian Chant given pride of place. But you certainly don’t hear any of that today. Moreover, other important aspects of the documents of Vatican II are being ignored, from seminary formation, to religious education.

Unfortunately, we haven’t really been following the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Lest we contradict what the documents actually say.

 

[TNT]

Stop!



You’re killing me!


[/quote]

You know how to get the most laughs out of a 1-liner!

Well, so far with 25 votes, 47+ % (No+We’re doomed) is in the negative.
Still some common sense and reality checks out there!

 

[TNT]

Robotics2ko:

I wasn’t around before Vatican II. But doesn’t Vatican II stress Gregorian Chant and Latin? Sacrosanctum Concilium clearly states this

1. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.
2. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people (WHICH IS PRACTICALLY ALWAYS) , especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.

Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

1. (1) In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power to grant the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up in accordance with the provisions of article 36.
2. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, (WHICH THEY SELDOM OR NEVER ARE) it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

So apparently, Latin was supposed to be reserved in the Latin Rites, and Gregorian Chant given pride of place…

Unfortunately, we haven’t really been following the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Lest we contradict what the documents actually say.

**May God bless your Niavete. **
The Red / underlined are all strategic placements of “Liturgical Land Mines” and constitute the actual “Spirit” when applied.
What you have quoted is exemplary of the VATII documents…riddled with “Time Bombs” made to go off in APPLICATION of the documents. (Clever eh!)
If you only read the exception clauses of VATII documents, you will arrive at the “Spirit” and how the Vatican has and intends to apply the document.
IF LATIN WAS NEVER USED EVER, EVER, IT WOULD SATISFY THE ABOVE DOCUMENT!

**Such method of writing is a hallmark of liberal discourse. (see my signature)
God Bless.
**

 

[netmilsmom]

davy39:

No, no, I don’t want to go back to the days of the latin Mass, and gregorian chant. Keep the mass in the language of the people. Most of the people that want the “old mass” back weren’t even around before Vatican 2. One of the reasons for the english Mass was to incourage participation. It’s hard to participate when you can’t sing hardly any of the latin words. And don’t tell me about the missalette with latin on one page and the english on the other. They didn’t work back in the 50’s and they won’t work now.

They work at my parish!
We sing parts of the mass in Latin and Greek.

My four year old can, you can too!

 

[netmilsmom]

Irish Catholic:

On that note, does anyone know of a link to the new GIRM online? I’d be very interested in reading it…

Try here!
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

I don’t think anyone who serves on a Liturgy Committee knows what a GIRM is. What about Redemptionis Sacramentum. That one is being completely ignored.

-Ted

 

[jlw]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

They work at my parish!
We sing parts of the mass in Latin and Greek.

My four year old can, you can too!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[davy39]

Franciscum:

So very true.

I think perhaps the most tragic aspect of this sort of behavior is the power it gives to the other extremes within the Church.

In any event, the Novus Ordo Mass is every bit as reverent and beautiful as the Tridentine Mass. And a whole lot easier to follow…

I agree. I was raised with the latin Mass, and I much prefer the Mass we have now. The priest usually said the latin prayers so fast, if you tried to follow along, you would get left in the dust. The Mass we have now, properly said, is just fine. God bless.