Irreverent Mass

[GemmaRose]

By the way… I didn’t vote one way or another because what constitutes an “irreverent” Mass can be very subjective.

A Mass with some teens strumming guitars is not irreverent, therefore, not sinful. (I’m sure there are others who won’t hesitate to disagree.)

A Mass with liturgical dance… if performed decently and reverently, even though not allowed by rubrics, I personally don’t find irreverent and therefore not sinful. As to those who plan the Mass, I am not their judge, Jesus is. I would like to think that they mean no irreverence and are just ill-informed.

However, a “Mass” celebrated by a woman “priest” - that’s irreverent and sacriligious, and I think to not walk out would be sinful. As to those who plan and participate… well, if they want to be excommunicated…

 

[una_fides]

But the Catholic Church has not thrown Pius X out the window. …
Pius X is using Gregorian chant in two ways. He is using it as a measuring stick by which all liturgical music should be measured. This does not prohibit any music that is not Greogrian chante. It simply gives us Gregorian Chant as a point of reference.

The second thing that he did very well was to remind us that Gregorian chant should not be abandoned, because it’s part of our heritagee that we inherited from the Fathers of the Church.
…
No the Catholic Church has not thrown out the suggestions of Pius X. Gregorian chant is till the reference point and it is still part of our history and the Catholic Church has not plans on letting it disappear.
JR

JR, this is your best post yet. Good summary and applications.

 

[una_fides]

I stand corrected. I think I when I posted this I somehow forgot we were talking about Charismatic Masses.

They do support the Charismatic movement, based on what you’ve posted and things I’ve seen elsewhere.

Why? I don’t know. Just gotta accept it I guess.

As a kid I attended a lot of charismatic protestant services (family mainly pentecostal). As faithful Catholics, are we required to support/believe in/accept the Charismatic movement?

What’s the Holy See’s policy on the Charismatic movement in regards to non-Charismatics?

Their policy would have to be the same as to other separated communities: they have some elements of the truth but they are separated from the fullness of grace and truth only available in the Church with all 7 saving sacraments. (though usually the Church today tries to word it a little easier for them to digest without offending them.)
While the Church has (in my opinion) unfortunately made positive remarks regarding the movement, I have never read any statement by the Church that says that they actually verify that their claims to the miraculous in their use of what they call spiritual gifts are verifiable or necessarily of divine origin. I personally am highly suspect of the movement as it originated among protestants who rejected the Catholic Church and took decades before anyone ever brought these practices to the Catholic Church. I personally think that the reason the Vatican has not condemned the movement is due to their fear of isolating sincere people who have faith in Christ and instead hope to draw them all into the Catholic Church. So basically they view it as an ecumenical endeavor rather than the wave of the future for the Church.

 

[JReducation]

By the way… I didn’t vote one way or another because what constitutes an “irreverent” Mass can be very subjective.

A Mass with some teens strumming guitars is not irreverent, therefore, not sinful. (I’m sure there are others who won’t hesitate to disagree.)

A Mass with liturgical dance… if performed decently and reverently, even though not allowed by rubrics, I personally don’t find irreverent and therefore not sinful. As to those who plan the Mass, I am not their judge, Jesus is. I would like to think that they mean no irreverence and are just ill-informed.

However, a “Mass” celebrated by a woman “priest” - that’s irreverent and sacriligious, and I think to not walk out would be sinful. As to those who plan and participate… well, if they want to be excommunicated…

I’m agreeing with you and would like to add some footnotes. Let’s start at the end.

1. Mass presided by a woman is not a mass. That’s a moot point.
2. One has the look at the rubrics and the decrees very closely regarding liturgical dance. In some writings that you see regarding this subject there is always a parenthetical remark that speaks to the importannce of taking culture into consideration. In some cultures, not so much the USA, but in other cultures, dance is not only a fine art, but it has been a form of prayer for thousands of year. To when people convert from pagan religions and they profess their faith in God, they want to pray to him in the best form that they know. This has to be factored into the equation. The Church does factor this into the equation. That’s why it gives the conferences of bishops some latitude on such matters. The Cardinals at the Vatican are liturgists, canon lawyers, Church historians, theologians, scripture scholars and so forth. Most of them are not aware of every possible situation that can come up. They do place trust on the Bishops’ Conferences.
3. As to instruments used at mass. No one is denying that in the Western Rite the organ has been the instrument of choice for worship. But it would be equally foolish to say that no other instrument has ever been used in worship. When Teresa of Avila founded her Discalced Carmelite houses, they were too poor to own organs. The used tamborines at mass. When Teresa was present, she played the guitar. St. Francis of Assisi also founded religious houses that were too poor to own organs. He played the mandolin and composed songs in Italian that were sung at mass. The most famous one is the Canticle of Brother Sun which is meant to be sun with a stringed instrument in the vernacular. When a group of young people use their guitars and their electric keyboards to worship, what makes them different from Teresa of Avila or Francis of Assisi? The difference would be the attitude, not the instrument or the music. If they approach mass with the same attitude, then let them use the instruments that are familiar to them and that they know how to use. This is not what the Church is scrutinizing. The Church is scrutinizing the lack of reverence, not the tools.
4. I have heard many people comment on the lack of reverence in the use of Mariachi music. Do people know that for the people of Central America Mariachi music is the music of love and beauty. It takes a great deal of talent and effort to do Mariachi music. It was the music of St. Juan Diego and other great Mexican saints. If you visit the Shrine of our Lady of Guadalupe you will hear beautiful songs composed just for her using Mariachi music. The words are full of tenderness, love, devotion and the people feel that they are offering the best of their art to God’s mother. Where is the irreverence in such an attitude?

Irreverence is not always external. Sometimes it’s an attitude. Our priest preached on irreverence today. He said something very interesting. He said that you will always find a fault when you come to mass, either in the priest, the deacon, the servers, the choir or the laity, if you come to mass looking for faults. If you come to mass looking for Christ as the great mystics did, you will find him. We are here to follow Christ, not the other person in front of us or next to us.

He wasn’t trying to push indifferentism. He was trying to correct the other extreme, which is just as dangerous as indifferentism, hypervigilance. He was pointing out that hypervigilance at mass can take away from your spiritual experience as much as abuse can. Because both take you away from what should be your focal point.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Actually this is not the case. Even during Vatican II and after, the Church always insisted that liturgy must have symbol and beauty. Now, I understand that beauty can be subjective. What is beautiful to one person may be horrible to another.

But the Catholic Church has not thrown Pius X out the window. The only thing that the Vatican Council added was to encourage the development of good liturgical music, be it in Latin or the Language of the people.

Well then, if it is all subjective, then there really is nothing wrong with the music and dancing in the Mass of Bishop Remi de Roo.

 

[bobzills]

They do support the Charismatic movement, based on what you’ve posted and things I’ve seen elsewhere.

Why? I don’t know. Just gotta accept it I guess.

That is my impression also. I don;t see any official RC condemnation of the movement at all, just support for it.

 

[una_fides]

Well then, if it is all subjective, then there really is nothing wrong with the music and dancing in the Mass of Bishop Remi de Roo.

In defense of JReducation, I think that in his saying that it “can be subjective” means that it can only be subjective within a certain reasonable degree, and such subjectivity is limited to the official declarations of the Church in union with the Pope. Let me also clarify that statement in that any given bishop or even groups of bishops could put out a statement that would not necessarily be correct or that could also be revoked or denounced as well, as has taken place throughout history. (Nevertheless, in the present state of the discipline-lacking hierarchy, there have not been as many of these statements, and when condemnations are made it seems that the following actual discipline tends to be lacking, such as in dealing with the priestly child abuse cases as well as others.)

But regardless, the Church in her official documents has already condemned the abuses of the said bishop as well as any other bishop who deviates from the rubrics unlawfully. It is not necessary for official pronouncements condemning each specific action by each specific person. Once the action has been condemned in general or even if the action itself can merely be shown to be a deviation from the law of the Church, then the action must be condemned as abuse. That’s really the end of the story, unless someone wishes to try to argue that violating Church law is ok as long as someone finds it “beautiful” or “enjoyable.”

 

[bobzills]

In defense of JReducation, I think that in his saying that it “can be subjective” means that it can only be subjective within a certain reasonable degree, and such subjectivity is limited to the official declarations of the Church in union with the Pope. Let me also clarify that statement in that any given bishop or even groups of bishops could put out a statement that would not necessarily be correct or that could also be revoked or denounced as well, as has taken place throughout history. (Nevertheless, in the present state of the discipline-lacking hierarchy, there have not been as many of these statements, and when condemnations are made it seems that the following actual discipline tends to be lacking, such as in dealing with the priestly child abuse cases as well as others.)

But regardless, the Church in her official documents has already condemned the abuses of the said bishop as well as any other bishop who deviates from the rubrics unlawfully. It is not necessary for official pronouncements condemning each specific action by each specific person. Once the action has been condemned in general or even if the action itself can merely be shown to be a deviation from the law of the Church, then the action must be condemned as abuse. That’s really the end of the story, unless someone wishes to try to argue that violating Church law is ok as long as someone finds it “beautiful” or “enjoyable.”

It still is subjective as to whether or not the music or the dancing of this Mass or of that Mass is irreverent or not.

 

[una_fides]

It still is subjective as to whether or not the music or the dancing of this Mass or of that Mass is irreverent or not.

It can be to us if the matter has not been officially decided. When a matter or action has not been specifically officially decided, we must keep in mind to first form our opinion in line with the mind of the Church and base our opinions by applying other foundational principles and teachings to the situation. If you read the post containing Pope St. Pius X’s official document on what constitutes sacred music, he lays out the principles to which modern music must meet. He also condemns “theatrical music” being performed at Mass, which would also constitute any type of dancing. He does so because of it’s lack of sacredness, and consequently therefore lack of proper reverence.

“Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.
6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.” adoremus.org/TraLeSollecitudini.html#anchor40134803

 

[bobzills]

If you read the post containing Pope St. Pius X’s official document on what constitutes sacred music, he lays out the principles to which modern music must meet. He also condemns “theatrical music” being performed at Mass, which would also constitute any type of dancing. He does so because of it’s lack of sacredness, and consequently therefore lack of proper reverence.

“Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.
6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.” adoremus.org/TraLeSollecitudini.html#anchor40134803

OK. But this and many other things have been thrown out and are not being followed today. For example, it was also taught that women are to wear headcovering in Church, This has been thrown out. And as well, if you would take a look at the Masses celebrated at the LA Catholic congress under Cardinal Mahony, you will see the liturgical dancing and no one has been condemned or excommunicated for it. And as well, you will see maricahi band type Masses, Peter, Paul and M<Aryh folk music type Masses, Chines dragon Masses celebrating the Chines New Year, charismatic Masses with people rolling on the floor screaming, rock and roll type Masses, cowboy Masses, Halloween Masses, jazz type Masses, with people clapping and swaying to and fro. And who has been condemned or excommunicated for this type of Mass? Answer: No one. So everything is subjective as a previous poster has pointed out, and poeple can even claim to interpret what you have quoted in a subjective way so as to support this type of Mass. To sum up, the Mass of Bishop Remi de Roo really cannot be called irreverent by today’s standards of the post Vatican II Church. And we have seen official statements supporting the charismatic movement.

 

[una_fides]

OK. But this and many other things have been thrown out and are not being followed today. For example, it was also taught that women are to wear headcovering in Church, This has been thrown out. And as well, if you would take a look at the Masses celebrated at the LA Catholic congress under Cardinal Mahony, you will see the liturgical dancing and no one has been condemned or excommunicated for it. And as well, you will see maricahi band type Masses, Peter, Paul and M<Aryh folk music type Masses, Chines dragon Masses celebrating the Chines New Year, charismatic Masses with people rolling on the floor screaming, rock and roll type Masses, cowboy Masses, Halloween Masses, jazz type Masses, with people clapping and swaying to and fro. And who has been condemned or excommunicated for this type of Mass? Answer: No one. So everything is subjective as a previous poster has pointed out, and poeple can even claim to interpret what you have quoted in a subjective way so as to support this type of Mass. To sum up, the Mass of Bishop Remi de Roo really cannot be called irreverent by today’s standards of the post Vatican II Church. And we have seen official statements supporting the charismatic movement.

Let me start with where you concluded:
To support a movement in general is one thing, but to support liturgical abuse performed by some within the movement is another. Yes, liturgical abuses have and do occur. Nevertheless, just because they are not specifically condemned when they specifically occur does not mean that the actions are accepted. What is says is that bishops in the US have lost some backbone and tend to be non-confrontational now-a-days. Yes, that is a problem just as the abuse is. All we can do is pray for an end to the abuses and an increase in traditional Church discipline. We need to pray especially for the Pope in this regard as he is the only one who can discipline erring bishops.

 

[una_fides]

Here’s what the Church officially has to say about liturgical dance. Hopefully everyone will read this and it won’t have to be posted again:

“Introducing dance into the liturgy in the United States would be to add “one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements” leading to “an atmosphere of profanity, which would easily suggest to those present worldly places and profane situations. Nor is it acceptable to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because it would reduce the liturgy to mere entertainment” (Notitiae 11 [1975] 202–205).”
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

This is #9 of the list of the top 10 liturgical abuses. I recommend that everyone on this thread read that article in the site above.

We as faithful Catholics must also remember our duty to stand up and oppose abuses when we see them. We should prayerfully approach the priests at our local parishes with this information as they may honestly be ignorant of these facts. (When planing such a talk with a priest, come prepared with ample documentation to leave with him.) We should also if need be inform them that we as faithful Catholics find it offensive when they deviate from the rubrics. At that point, the priest will either listen or he may reject the Church’s teachings that you have shared with him on this matter. If so, we should then appeal to the higher authorities until something is done. Believe it or not, things can happen, but it does take time. The key is that we speak up.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Just a liturgical dancing anecdote:

From 1994-1997 I was living in a small town with only one Catholic church that had begun liturgical dance during Mass. People like myself politely objected, but were told we were old fashioned and out of touch. Consequently,a group of us who tithe (about 50 families out of 140) got together and stopped contributing to the church. We still attended, but we sent our donations directly to the diocese stating the reason we were no longer supporting our local parish. This made the bishop aware of the problem and it also hurt the parish revenue since we were their biggest contributors. It took about four months, but the dancing stopped once the money stopped coming in. I’d like to think that there was some pressure from the bishop’s office too, but I’m not sure.

The bottom line is that churches run on contributions, and most parishes will stop any practice that cuts off their funds. Not a sound spiritual basis for liturgical reform, but it works!

 

[JReducation]

In defense of JReducation, I think that in his saying that it “can be subjective” means that it can only be subjective within a certain reasonable degree, and such subjectivity is limited to the official declarations of the Church in union with the Pope. Let me also clarify that statement in that any given bishop or even groups of bishops could put out a statement that would not necessarily be correct or that could also be revoked or denounced as well, as has taken place throughout history. (Nevertheless, in the present state of the discipline-lacking hierarchy, there have not been as many of these statements, and when condemnations are made it seems that the following actual discipline tends to be lacking, such as in dealing with the priestly child abuse cases as well as others.)

But regardless, the Church in her official documents has already condemned the abuses of the said bishop as well as any other bishop who deviates from the rubrics unlawfully. It is not necessary for official pronouncements condemning each specific action by each specific person. Once the action has been condemned in general or even if the action itself can merely be shown to be a deviation from the law of the Church, then the action must be condemned as abuse. That’s really the end of the story, unless someone wishes to try to argue that violating Church law is ok as long as someone finds it “beautiful” or “enjoyable.”

Thanks Fides

When I used the word subjective I was referring to beauty. Beauty may be subjective. I may life a hymn that the Pope does not. This is subjective. However, if the Pope says, “Thou shalt not dress as Winnie the Pooh for mass.” There is nothing subjective here.

I hope this is clearer.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Let me start with where you concluded:
To support a movement in general is one thing, but to support liturgical abuse performed by some within the movement is another. Yes, liturgical abuses have and do occur. Nevertheless, just because they are not specifically condemned when they specifically occur does not mean that the actions are accepted. What is says is that bishops in the US have lost some backbone and tend to be non-confrontational now-a-days. Yes, that is a problem just as the abuse is. All we can do is pray for an end to the abuses and an increase in traditional Church discipline. We need to pray especially for the Pope in this regard as he is the only one who can discipline erring bishops.

The problem is that as another poster has pointed out, this is subjective. What one Catholic says is abuse, another one says is relevant to his spiritual development and is not abuse.

 

[bobzills]

Here’s what the Church officially has to say about liturgical dance. Hopefully everyone will read this and it won’t have to be posted again:

“Introducing dance into the liturgy in the United States would be to add “one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements” leading to “an atmosphere of profanity, which would easily suggest to those present worldly places and profane situations. Nor is it acceptable to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because it would reduce the liturgy to mere entertainment” (Notitiae 11 [1975] 202–205).”
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

This is #9 of the list of the top 10 liturgical abuses. I recommend that everyone on this thread read that article in the site above.

We as faithful Catholics must also remember our duty to stand up and oppose abuses when we see them. We should prayerfully approach the priests at our local parishes with this information as they may honestly be ignorant of these facts. (When planing such a talk with a priest, come prepared with ample documentation to leave with him.) We should also if need be inform them that we as faithful Catholics find it offensive when they deviate from the rubrics. At that point, the priest will either listen or he may reject the Church’s teachings that you have shared with him on this matter. If so, we should then appeal to the higher authorities until something is done. Believe it or not, things can happen, but it does take time. The key is that we speak up.

It is not being followed, this rule has been thrown out, as have so many others, as can be seen by the Masses celebrated at various Eucharistic congresses and other Catholic events, which are well attended by bishops and cardinals in the RCC today. For example, take a look at the Los Angeles Catholic Congresses for the past several years.

 

[bobzills]

Just a liturgical dancing anecdote:

From 1994-1997 I was living in a small town with only one Catholic church that had begun liturgical dance during Mass. People like myself politely objected, but were told we were old fashioned and out of touch. Consequently,a group of us who tithe (about 50 families out of 140) got together and stopped contributing to the church. We still attended, but we sent our donations directly to the diocese stating the reason we were no longer supporting our local parish. This made the bishop aware of the problem and it also hurt the parish revenue since we were their biggest contributors. It took about four months, but the dancing stopped once the money stopped coming in. I’d like to think that there was some pressure from the bishop’s office too, but I’m not sure.

The bottom line is that churches run on contributions, and most parishes will stop any practice that cuts off their funds. Not a sound spiritual basis for liturgical reform, but it works!

However, this is also evidence that the Catholic authorites do not agree with the anonymous posters here who claim that liturgical dancing is somehow abusive.

 

[bobzills]

Thanks Fides

When I used the word subjective I was referring to beauty. Beauty may be subjective. I may life a hymn that the Pope does not. This is subjective. However, if the Pope says, “Thou shalt not dress as Winnie the Pooh for mass.” There is nothing subjective here.

I hope this is clearer.

JR

It is not clear, becasue the Pope has issued no such statement. In fact, his bishops and cardinals have allowed clown Masses and they have not been excommunicated. And what is the purpose of a clown Mass, except to indicate that the Catholic religion is not to be taken seriously? Aren’t clowns the personification of a joke. They are known alternately as jokesters?
And the Pope has specifically given his support for the charismatic movement or Congresses, has he not?

 

[JReducation]

The problem is that as another poster has pointed out, this is subjective. What one Catholic says is abuse, another one says is relevant to his spiritual development and is not abuse.

Not everything is relevant or relative. Only those things that are neutral are relative.

The Church is very clear on what is absolute. Whatever is not absolute, she states as an opinion or commentary. She may even leave it to the local authorities to decided for their jurisdiction.

That’s why it’s a good idea to know what your local hierarchy has to say about those things that you’re unsure of. There are documents published by the Bishops’ Conferences or statements made by the local bishop.

This is just an example. The superior of our friars has told the pastor of our parish that as long as the Bishop does not demand the EF, he (the superior) will not get involved in the matter, because it does not affect the religious community. This is an example relative. The EF is out there and the bishop has stated that the pastors may decide to celebrate it or not. The bishop has also said that as far as religious communities who run parishes, it is up to the religious superior to decided if he will allow his priests to celebrate it and when, because he wants to keep the religious communities in his diocese and does not want to enter into a power struggle with the religious superiors and risk losing the religious to other dioceses.

In this case, the implementation of the EF is relative to the needs of the parish and the judgement of the pastors. If the bishop had said, “all parishes must have one EF mass” then it would be absolute.

An example of an absolute, our bishop has said that all parishes must allow female altar servers, but the individual priest may ask the pastor not to assign him to a mass with female altar servers and the pastor must oblige the priest. This is an absolute. The rules have been laid down pretty black and white. There is nothing to be argued, unless you want to take the bishop on directly. Even there, there is nothing to be argued because Church law is on his side.

Therefore, not all things are relative, neutral or absolute. We should always ask if we are not certain.

JR

 

[una_fides]

It is not being followed, this rule has been thrown out, as have so many others, as can be seen by the Masses celebrated at various Eucharistic congresses and other Catholic events, which are well attended by bishops and cardinals in the RCC today. For example, take a look at the Los Angeles Catholic Congresses for the past several years.

sorry, you are wrong on this one. the rule was not “thrown out.” if so, please provide official documentation. otherwise, it would be best to not make things up to support your position.