How can the Collapse of the Liturgy be reversed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VociMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding liturgies, something else should be considered. There are many parishes (and dioceses, for that matter) that do not have the funds to pay for a liturgist. Oh, they’ll give us money to go to conferences and study, but, they cannot afford to pay us.

Don’t get me wrong. The money would help, but, you have to work with what you’ve got. In many cases, those of us who may not have degrees do our best to hold on and follow Rome’s lead and directives.

I was sent to a conference to learn what changes had come about from the revised GIRM. I must have taken two legal pads full of notes. I shared them with our diocesan director of worship (a priest with a PhD in liturgy from a Roman university). I offered to do the powerpoint presentation for him. He declined.

Whne they had the meeting of the presbyterial council, two friends of mine (priests) asked me what was up wtih the revised GIRM. I told them, I though that the director was going to give them a thorough review. Nope. All he said was that they had to full up the chalices during the offertory and that was it. :eek:

I lent them my notes and one of them said that what I wrote wasn’t covered. I was disapointed, but, not surprised. RS hasn’t even been discussed, to my knowledge. If that were the case, a couple of the priests wouldn’t have asked me to lend them my copy. 🤷
 
Brendan said:
Actually, that is what the Pope himself used at both the Wash DC Mass, and at World Youth Day.

What the GIRM actually instructs is that their be a crucifix within the Sanctuary, that does not necessarily include one being suspended ABOVE the Sanctuary, or behind it.

Rather, the processional cross and altar cross should not be used simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Here we go. That’s your personal interpretation of the GIRM and it does not match my own or those of many others. This is a perfect example where it’s up to the local ordinary unless the Church issues clarifying language.

I wouldn’t have a crucifix on the altar and one hanging right behind it unless the Church gave specific relief from the GIRM or my bishop directed it.

Using televised papal Masses as “proof” that it’s approved simply doesn’t feed the bulldog.
 
Rickwood said:
Here we go. That’s your personal interpretation of the GIRM and it does not match my own or those of many others. This is a perfect example where it’s up to the local ordinary unless the Church issues clarifying language.

I wouldn’t have a crucifix on the altar and one hanging right behind it unless the Church gave specific relief from the GIRM or my bishop directed it.

Using televised papal Masses as “proof” that it’s approved simply doesn’t feed the bulldog.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not Brendan’s personal interpretation of the GIRM; rather, that is how the Holy Father reads it. He is, after all, the supreme authority over all matters of the Church, most especially the liturgy.

Furthermore, the Papal Mass is the standard bearer for how a pooperly celebrated liturgy should look and sound like. After all, this is Peter and he is feeding the flock through word and deed.

Msgr. Marini has already offered an excellent explanation as to why the Holy Father is doing what he is doing.
 
benedictgal said:
Regarding liturgies, something else should be considered. There are many parishes (and dioceses, for that matter) that do not have the funds to pay for a liturgist. Oh, they’ll give us money to go to conferences and study, but, they cannot afford to pay us.

Don’t get me wrong. The money would help, but, you have to work with what you’ve got. In many cases, those of us who may not have degrees do our best to hold on and follow Rome’s lead and directives.

I was sent to a conference to learn what changes had come about from the revised GIRM. I must have taken two legal pads full of notes. I shared them with our diocesan director of worship (a priest with a PhD in liturgy from a Roman university). I offered to do the powerpoint presentation for him. He declined.

Whne they had the meeting of the presbyterial council, two friends of mine (priests) asked me what was up wtih the revised GIRM. I told them, I though that the director was going to give them a thorough review. Nope. All he said was that they had to full up the chalices during the offertory and that was it. :eek:

I lent them my notes and one of them said that what I wrote wasn’t covered. I was disapointed, but, not surprised. RS hasn’t even been discussed, to my knowledge. If that were the case, a couple of the priests wouldn’t have asked me to lend them my copy. 🤷
Click to expand...
What’s your point? Your bishop failed to ensure his sons received the education and training they needed. I have no idea why you were sent in place of your “diocesan director of worship” or another cleric who should have been tasked with creating and presenting a program for your entire diocese.
 
Rickwood said:
Not at all. To be candid there are priests who act as you describe and lay liturgists with just the opposite qualities. One cannot generalize.

My beef are those laypersons who claim to be liturgists, they might even hold the title, yet they lack the formal education and training to do the job without often dire consequence.
Click to expand...
Then we may be in more agreement than I thought.

To me, the idea of making this a “professional” position leaves the door wide open to allowing misguided laity to take on the role is a mistaken attempt at “inclusion”. The end result, bad liturgy.

God Bless
 
Rickwood said:
My beef are those laypersons who claim to be liturgists, they might even hold the title, yet they lack the formal education and training to do the job without often dire consequence.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could turn that “beef” into some enthusiasm that people have interest in our faith that they are “passionate” about it.

There are those liturgical elitists who despise the fact that the GIRM is avail to John and Mary Catholic for review. Such elitists want zombies in the pew who just do what they say.

Certainly they (liturgists who are elitist) feel a sense of threat to their “power” and “status” when someone starts infringing on their personal “turf”.

Whats worse Liturgical Auditors or Liturgical Elitists?
 
bilop said:
Then we may be in more agreement than I thought.

To me, the idea of making this a “professional” position leaves the door wide open to allowing misguided laity to take on the role is a mistaken attempt at “inclusion”. The end result, bad liturgy.

God Bless
Click to expand...
I think actually being educated at some depth in the liturgy would prevent that sort of thing and again, a cleric would be the optimal choice.

I think a lot of the “bad liturgy” today is a product of people who just really don’t care.
 
Rickwood said:
What’s your point? Your bishop failed to ensure his sons received the education and training they needed. I have no idea why you were sent in place of your “diocesan director of worship” or another cleric who should have been tasked with creating and presenting a program for your entire diocese.
Click to expand...
The diocesan director of worship also has the responsibilitise of a pastor. There is double duty involved. We are a young diocese with a lot of rough edges. The bishop sent me because he trusted me to get the information, ask the questions and get results.

In fact, there were certain matters where a parish from the outlying area was asking for guidance on the proper lectionary to use for the Spanish Masses in ther town and the director passed the phone on to me. He was supposed to know which version was approved for use in the United States, but he had me answer the question, and, he has an STD in Liturgy from a Roman university. 🤷

You need not take an insulting tone in this thread and in many others. This is not helpful to a constructive discussion on anything, especiallyi the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Just as I have seen degreed liturgists do their best to conform to Rome, I have also seen some at the level of a doctorate claim that they know better and do their own thing. And, both versions have been priests.
 
Rickwood said:
I think a lot of the “bad liturgy” today is a product of people who just really don’t care.
Click to expand...
I think you are probably right.

But, it does bring up a question in my mind. Why do people who just don’t care become involved in planning Liturgy in the first place?

Any thoughts on that?

James
 
Brendan said:
Actually, that is what the Pope himself used at both the Wash DC Mass, and at World Youth Day.

What the GIRM actually instructs is that their be a crucifix within the Sanctuary, that does not necessarily include one being suspended ABOVE the Sanctuary, or behind it.

Rather, the processional cross and altar cross should not be used simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Thank you…the simple point i tried to make earlier that some took offense to…🤷
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
Hi,

We will have the Mass celebrated as the celebrant and/or Pastor prefers. (or allows) I have seen this mentioned in regard to other irregularities, and I believe this is it.

If the Pastor wants more attention to the rubrics and instructions in the GIRM, this will happen. If he is more liberal, nothing will change, unless the congregation pressures him. (And maybe not even then) It is best if a number of people address any irregularities. It is easy to ignore 1 or 2.

Complaining to the Bishop about little irregularities will not accomplish much, and will hurt you effectiveness if there is a serious problem. And all the knowledge in the world will do no good, if it is not what the Pastor wishes.

Lux
Click to expand...
A little bit of wisdom goes a long way. Great Post 👍
 
japhy said:
Watch your tone; we can be respectful here.

GIRM 117, in describing the altar, says: “Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession.”

GIRM 122, referring to the entrance procession, says: “The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place.”

And GIRM 308 reiterates, saying: “There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation.”

Whether GIRM 122, in saying the (possibly processional) crucifix serving as the altar cross “ought to be the only cross used”, means that an altar cross should preclude another crucifix in the sanctuary (such as one hanging on the wall in the apse) is a matter of interpretation. Does it mean “the only cross used on/at the altar”, or more generally “the only cross used near the altar”? In other words, does a wall-crucifix in the sanctuary preclude the presence of a crucifix on the altar (especially if that altar is away from the back wall of the apse, a “people’s altar”)?

My parish has no wall-crucifix… we have a “resurrectrix”. Thus, the processional crucifix is placed in the sanctuary so that a crucifix is near the altar. There’s no reason it couldn’t be placed at the altar, in my opinion.

I would not advocate removing a wall-crucifix for the purpose of using a crucifix on the altar; but at the same time, I wouldn’t be so rigid as to forbid the presence of a crucifix on the altar if there were also a crucifix on the wall. But as I am not a trained liturgist, this is not my decision to make. That said, however, we have seen the Pope’s preference for an altar cross, even in situations where there is a (large!) crucifix already present in the sanctuary.

Please do me a favor: don’t get this or any other Liturgy & Sacraments thread locked or deleted!
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. That is the way I understood it as well. 🙂
 
benedictgal said:
The diocesan director of worship also has the responsibilitise of a pastor. There is double duty involved. We are a young diocese with a lot of rough edges. The bishop sent me because he trusted me to get the information, ask the questions and get results.

In fact, there were certain matters where a parish from the outlying area was asking for guidance on the proper lectionary to use for the Spanish Masses in ther town and the director passed the phone on to me. He was supposed to know which version was approved for use in the United States, but he had me answer the question, and, he has an STD in Liturgy from a Roman university. 🤷

You need not take an insulting tone in this thread and in many others. This is not helpful to a constructive discussion on anything, especiallyi the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Just as I have seen degreed liturgists do their best to conform to Rome, I have also seen some at the level of a doctorate claim that they know better and do their own thing. And, both versions have been priests.
Click to expand...
As someone who is in diaconal formation and prison ministry…I will be the first to say that Benedictgal has helped me more than once learn “liturgical stuff”

Oh by the way Thanks a ton for giving me that info on celebration of the Eucharist outside of the Mass. Myself along with about 35 prisoners thank you from the bottom of our hearts. The info you sent me is followed to a T.

Regards,
Thur
 
PrayforMallory said:
I might be foolish, but I feel like things need to move closer to a head. Eventually, there’s going to be a Reformed American Catholic Church (if there’s not already one brewing somewhere). Might as well get it over with sooner, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Sounds schismatic to me…🤷
 
japhy said:
I’ve written some things I would have liked to retain access to in the past couple days, but those threads have been removed. I’d rather not have wasted all that time.
Click to expand...
You and me both. We probably should have heeded the advice to copy information we wanted while it was still available, or just not bothered in the first place.
40.png
japhy:
So please, don’t get this thread deleted and end up wasting my time (and others’). Please, don’t get this thread locked, because I KNOW we can have a decent liturgical discussion without getting off-topic or attacking each other’s person or character.
Click to expand...
Since we don’t know what reasons there may be for threads being deleted, we can only speculate. And since we can’t speculated on moderator actions online, we have only our personal speculation to guide us, which is sadly not very helpful. Ultimately all we can do is continue to contribute in a way we believe to be helpful, until we are given more specific guidance. I assume this is what people are trying to do in the first place, so I’m not sure how your plea is supposed to be received.🤷
 
Rickwood said:
Replace “liberal” with “dissenting” and I would agree.
Click to expand...
“Liberal” and “dissenting” are two words that are used so, well, liberally that it can’t be assumed that one knows the author’s meaning. (Sometimes this includes the author.)

Let us just say “problematic” and leave it at that.
 
ethelzguy said:
He is NOT Peter. He occupies the Chair of Peter. :mad:
Click to expand...
Actually, he is Peter. Tu es Petrus applies to every Pope who is the successor of the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, it was the term used in the commentary when the Holy Father visited the Patriarch of Constantinople. “Peter has visited his brother, Andrew.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top