Irreverent Mass

[ProVobis]

Sometimes it is only those few who recognize the abuses and suffer because of them who assuage the Heart of Jesus so offended by the sacrileges going on.

Some feel, however, that to participate in such a Mass is to give one’s approval for everything that goes on there. It’s not a simple matter of “offering it up.” “Offering it up” is when you are subjected to kids crying or hearing poor musicians.

Take, for example, communion in the hand. Sure it is allowed but try telling those that after years of being conditioned that even touching the host with your teeth is a sacrilege that all of a sudden, it’s ok now. To be honest with you, I still cannot get myself to eat meat on Fridays and you can tell me all you want it’s ok now but I won’t do it. I just don’t think it’s a Catholic thing to eat meat on Fridays, ever. Some habits are very tough to break.

 

[una_fides]

…To be honest with you, I still cannot get myself to eat meat on Fridays and you can tell me all you want it’s ok now but I won’t do it. I just don’t think it’s a Catholic thing to eat meat on Fridays, ever. Some habits are very tough to break.

Actually, Catholics are still not supposed to eat meat on Fridays–and that includes non-lenten Fridays as well! Read this article, which cites current canon law on the matter: catholic-pages.com/life/fridaymeat.asp

 

[JReducation]

For something to be a sin you must have material. I’ve underscored fomr your post what could constitute material for sin.

What if the person in the pew purposefully intends to go to such a Mass and has other options? Perhaps they do so because they find the music more appealing, or they are opposed to Church authority; or perhaps they don’t care for formal reverent worship and desire more laid back and spontaneous services?
Couldn’t it be sins in these instances as long as they have the intent to do what is wrong and know that the Church says that such masses are wrong? And by participating in such masses, aren’t they, to some degree or another, approving of the actions?

The Church is not saying that these are sins. The Church is saying that these are wrong and inappropriate for mass. In and of themselves, many of these things are not materially sinful. Something can be wrong, but not materially sinful, such as liturgical dance.

Many saints throughout the history of the Church refused to receive Communion from the hands of those who taught heresies.

This was a poor judgement on the part of the saint. St. Francis made this very clear in his theology. The priest’s sinfulness does not take away from the Eucharist.

All priests can validly consecrate, even those who are excommunicated or defrocked. You cannot stip an ordained minister of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You can suspend him, dispense him, even excommunicate him, but he is a priest forever.

Scripture also clearly states that after the first or second admonition, avoid a heretic (Tit 3:10). Wouldn’t this teaching especially apply to heretical priests who teach heresies from their pulpits, perform irreverent services, and treat the Eucharist as if it were common food?

If the priest’s intention is to consecrate, he uses the correct words of consecration, uses the correct elements (bread and wine), the teaching of the Church is that the Eucharist is valid.

This scripture passage does not apply in this case. You are to avoid this person’s teaching, but you do not have to avoid the sacrament.

In a situation such as the SSPX and the Orthodox, the consecration is still valid, but unless there is not other place for you to worship, you may not receive communion at one of their masses, because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, not because the sacrament is invalid.

In fact, in the case of the Orthodox, the sacrament is valid and licit. In the case of the SSPX, the sacrament is valid, but ilicit.

The reason beeing that the Orthodox are not excommunicated. The excommunication and the anathemas were lifted by Paul VI.

Nonetheless, if the priest is in good standing with the Catholic Church, even if he’s an odd ball, the sacrament if both valid and licit. You incur no sinfulness receiving from him.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

This was a poor judgement on the part of the saint.

There may have been other reasons, though. Let’s not forget, receiving communion was a lot more rare in many centuries than it is today. Maybe that’s why they introduced the Easter duty and absolution right before people’s communion, I don’t know.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, Catholics are still not supposed to eat meat on Fridays–and that includes non-lenten Fridays as well! Read this article, which cites current canon law on the matter: catholic-pages.com/life/fridaymeat.asp

Actually that’s not the case in the USA. The Bishops are talking about it. But it’s not the norm yet.

Also, Canon Law of 1983 took away that penalty of mortal sin, which was in the old Canons.

You are supposed to practice some kind of self mortification on Fridays of the year, unless you follow the Franciscan tradition, then it’s Wed and Fri.

JR

 

[una_fides]

This was a poor judgement on the part of the saint. St. Francis made this very clear in his theology. The priest’s sinfulness does not take away from the Eucharist.
All priests can validly consecrate, even those who are excommunicated or defrocked. You cannot stip an ordained minister of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You can suspend him, dispense him, even excommunicate him, but he is a priest forever.

This scripture passage does not apply in this case. You are to avoid this person’s teaching, but you do not have to avoid the sacrament.

If the saints were to have not received Communion because they doubted the Real Presence, then they would have had a faulty understanding. I highly doubt this was their intentions. Most likely it was because receiving Communion is just that a sign of com-union. St. Ignatius of Antioch in around 110 AD said to have nothing to do with heretics. These saints were refusing even receiving the graces of Communion because of the scandalous message it would send that they are in union with heretics.

On your second note above, you do avoid the teaching, and in order to avoid the teaching and in order to avoid the teaching, you avoid the person promulgating the teaching to the extent that you do not share in visible communion with him, i.e. attending his masses and listening to his heretical preaching. In order to avoid becoming infected with heresies, it is important for us to point out false teaching when we see it, admonish those who persist in such teaching, appeal to Church authority, and avoid the false teachers. I am interested in your opinion when the verse I provided would apply.
Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

There may have been other reasons, though. Let’s not forget, receiving communion was a lot more rare in many centuries than it is today. Maybe that’s why they introduced the Easter duty and absolution right before people’s communion, I don’t know.

There could have been. I have not idea which saint the poster is referring to or what the circumstances were.

I’m remembering St. Teresa of Avila recurring to a priest who had run away from the Church to live with a woman. He had lived with her for many years. Teresa approached him for confession. He was stunned, but hear her confession. After he heard her confession, then he had to hear her sermon.

He ended up returning to the Church.

It’s a strange story.

JR

 

[NeedImprovement]

…

1. The priest must use bread and wine, no other substance

JR

Inaestimabile Donum
Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980

Article 8 :

“The bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, in accordance with the tradition of the whole Church, must be made solely of wheat, and, in accordance with the tradition proper to the Latin Church, it must be unleavened. By reason of the sign, the matter of the Eucharistic celebration “should appear as actual food.” This is to be understood as linked to the consistency of the bread, and not to its form, which remains the traditional one. No other ingredients are to be added to the wheaten flour and water. The preparation of the bread requires attentive care to ensure that the product does not detract from the dignity due to the Eucharistic bread, can be broken in a dignified way, does not give rise to excessive fragments, and does not offend the sensibilities of the faithful when they eat it. The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be of “the fruit of the vine” (Lk. 22:18) and be natural and genuine, that is to say not mixed with other substances”.

This is important because if anything else is added then one does not have the required “matter”. Change either the “form” or “matter” of the Eucharist and there is no Eucharist.

 

[ProVobis]

Also, Canon Law of 1983 took away that penalty of mortal sin, which was in the old Canons.

JR

Interesting because it (not doing the penance) is disobedience. And I doubt if one can plead necessity either.

 

[goblue32]

Here are some of my experiences at NO masses:

1. priests changing lots of words contrary to the rubrics.
   • many of these changes have been explicitly forbidden by Church authorities such as saying “for the praise and glory of God’s name” rather than “his name” and using other gender neutral words. Also changing words around consecration to “friends” rather than “apostles”, the list goes on for pages…
2. using unlawful clear glass cups for chalices
3. unlawfully removing holy water for all of lent
4. covering the crucifix for all of lent and easter until pentacost (no doubt because many protestants find it offensive–and these are likely the same protestants who they permit to come up and receive Communion–see #9)
5. “folk masses” and “life teen masses” which turn the mass into a performance that draws attention to the muscians rather than to Christ in the Eucharist. I’ve even seen people dancing around as a result of the upbeat music.
6. teaching heresies from the pulpit including that Christ did not need to be bodily raised from the dead in order for the Christian gospel to be valid
7. a priest emphatically teaching that people should NOT go to confession regularly, that no one commits mortal sin, and that sins can ordinarily be forgiven outside of the sacrament of confession and one instead can just pray to God directly.
8. extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist used as the norm and even used in very small gatherings and daily masses when not at all necessary
9. I have still yet to hear any priest teach that only Catholics can receive Communion and that they must be in a state of grace meaning that they are not conscious of any grave sins committed that have not been forgiven by prior sacramental confession
10. That abortion, homosexuality, and contraception are not mortal sins and that they are matters of an individual’s conscience only
    The list could continue for pages, but i think you get the point. heresy and irreverence are reigning in our churches and many bishops are sitting back as if everything is just peachy

I have heard #9 once at Christmas in Virginia, he was correct in saying that we didn’t want to make a mockery of the sacrement on Christmas.

 

[una_fides]

Actually that’s not the case in the USA. The Bishops are talking about it. But it’s not the norm yet.

Also, Canon Law of 1983 took away that penalty of mortal sin, which was in the old Canons.

You are supposed to practice some kind of self mortification on Fridays of the year, unless you follow the Franciscan tradition, then it’s Wed and Fri.

JR

Do you have anything to cite that the bishops in the US have somehow permitted all the faithful in the US to disobey universal canon law? I thought the point of canon law was that it was the norm. It is my understanding that the bishops in the US can only specify what may be substituted as a suitable penance instead of abstaining from meat on non-Lenten Fridays. Here is the link to the intro to the code of canon law: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM It appears to say that these are the laws of the Church regardless of what others are practicing. period.
Also do you have any official publication(s) by the Church that says that it used to be a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays and now no longer is? I haven’t researched this matter, so I would be interested in any evidence you can provide.
Thanks & God bless

 

[JReducation]

If the saints were to have not received Communion because they doubted the Real Presence, then they would have had a faulty understanding. I highly doubt this was their intentions. Most likely it was because receiving Communion is just that a sign of com-union. St. Ignatius of Antioch in around 110 AD said to have nothing to do with heretics. These saints were refusing even receiving the graces of Communion because of the scandalous message it would send that they are in union with heretics.

On your second note above, you do avoid the teaching, and in order to avoid the teaching and in order to avoid the teaching, you avoid the person promulgating the teaching to the extent that you do not share in visible communion with him, i.e. attending his masses and listening to his heretical preaching. In order to avoid becoming infected with heresies, it is important for us to point out false teaching when we see it, admonish those who persist in such teaching, appeal to Church authority, and avoid the false teachers. I am interested in your opinion when the verse I provided would apply.
Thanks.

If you read the entire chapter 3 of the Letter to Titus, you’ll notice that Paul is giving Titus advice on standing firm on matters of behaviour and faith. He concludes his advice by telling Titus to avoid those who are not firm in matters of behaviour and faith. It’s not a single act that Paul is referring to. He makes a list for Titus.

This is what in today’s moral law as well as canon law is called obstinancy. For example, if I have a friend who has a different woman at his home every week. In a respectful and charitable manner I can tell him what I believe is wrong with this behaviour. Once we have discussed it, I still have to love him and respect him, because he continues to be a person and a son of God, therefore my brother. But it is not the kind of environment where I should be visiting.

This was the case with the SSPX. We love them and we must respect them. But if they persist in not submitting to the authority of Peter, then they are being obstinate. This does not mean that we bash them every chance we get. That would be against charity and passing judgement, wich is reserved for God. But we have not business attending mass in their chapels, because it’s not a good environment for us. We run of the risk of becoming contaminated with the same defiant attitude toward Peter.

Paul is telling Titus to avoid running the risk of becoming contaminated by people’s poor behaviour or sin and he makes a list of sins that apparently were a problem in Titus circumstances. If he were writing for us, the list may be different, but the message, which is the Truth that is being revealed is the same.

Avoid situations that do harm to your spiritual life. Those situations are not going to be the same for everyone.

My example, a person who is a womanizer is more of a problem for me than a priest who likes rock music at mass. The rock music doesn’t interfere with my devotion the Word of God or the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I hate rock music, but it doesn’t give me high blood presure either.

By the way, in you list above, Life Teen Mass are not forbidden. I’m not sure who told you that. But you can tell them from someone who works for a Catholic diocese that such is not the case.

JR

 

[JuanCarlos]

A Mass that tries to marry Catholicism and the world must be avoided. A well cannot produce both salt water and fresh water.

I walked out of a first communion today because I felt it was only adding to my time in purgatory- the priest was dancing around to tambourine and electric guitar music, cracked jokes and gave a sermon that could have been authored by a secular humanist. I left when during the Canon of the Mass he invited the children up to the altar and had them raise their hands over the Eucharist when he did and had them pray with him. Every altar server, lector, musician, and eucharistic minister was female. I eventually came back at the end to hear the closing hymn, some secular humanist song that’s only line was “go make a difference”.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Would it be a sin to participate in a irreverent Novus Ordo Mass, or any form of Mass for that matter? If so would it be a mortal or venial sin? I’m asking this because I had to participate in the Novus Ordo Mass this morning and it was irreverent (music, piano, priest changing the words, etc.).

Don’t forget TradCatholic12 that the good intentions you bring also add to the “reverence” of the Mass and could well be consoling to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. One of the devil’s tricks is to try and prevent us from receiving Holy Communion worthily.So if we have the opportunity to receive Our Lord in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar worthily, we should take full advantage of it.

There have been several “different” stories recounted in this thread already.I have another from page 16 of Father Michael Scanlan’s (T.O.R) Booklet “THE HOLY SPIRIT” (Franciscan University Press). I found it indispensable in dealing with a case somewhat similar to yours. I had to force myself to work closely with a chaplain with whom I had issues for about 3 years. Here is the quote from Fr. Scanlon :

"St. Francis’ reverence for priests, even corrupt priests, is legendary. One time St. Francis kissed the hands of a priest who was believed to be keeping a mistress and said, "I do not really know whether these hands are stained…In any case, I do know that, even if they are, this in no way lessens the power and efficacy of the sacraments of God; those hands remain the channel whereby God’s graces and blessings stream down on the people. That is why I kiss them out of respect for what they administer and out of respect for Him who delegated his authority to them."

The Curé of Ars - St. John Vianney counsels in more than one of the books written on him that we do not speak against priests - even if something not good about them is true.(When we do we can be helping to create a wound in the Church).

It’s been a long haul, but today I am convinced that if God permits a priest’s wounds to be revealed to me, it’s because he wants me to pray for that priest…not talk about him.

If the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass you are attending isn’t yet a total fiasco, sometimes the best (and most difficult) thing you can do is continue to attend. Your example may well rub off on some of the other parishoners.

 

[NeedImprovement]

@ JuanCarlos Ouch!!..don’t know if I’d personally be able to go back…seems to be convergent with fiasco, or just one step away.

 

[JReducation]

Inaestimabile Donum
Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980

Article 8 :

“The bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, in accordance with the tradition of the whole Church, must be made solely of wheat, and, in accordance with the tradition proper to the Latin Church, it must be unleavened. By reason of the sign, the matter of the Eucharistic celebration “should appear as actual food.” This is to be understood as linked to the consistency of the bread, and not to its form, which remains the traditional one. No other ingredients are to be added to the wheaten flour and water. The preparation of the bread requires attentive care to ensure that the product does not detract from the dignity due to the Eucharistic bread, can be broken in a dignified way, does not give rise to excessive fragments, and does not offend the sensibilities of the faithful when they eat it. The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be of “the fruit of the vine” (Lk. 22:18) and be natural and genuine, that is to say not mixed with other substances”.

This is important because if anything else is added then one does not have the required “matter”. Change either the “form” or “matter” of the Eucharist and there is no Eucharist.

That’s what I said above. You must have bread and wine. Though in some cases you may use grape juice and wine. The reason that the Church allows grape juice is because if left to ferment, grapejuice will become wine.

This is allowed for cases when the priest, for health reasons, cannot consume alcohol.

JR

 

[JReducation]

A Mass that tries to marry Catholicism and the world must be avoided. A well cannot produce both salt water and fresh water.

I walked out of a first communion today because I felt it was only adding to my time in purgatory- the priest was dancing around to tambourine and electric guitar music, cracked jokes and gave a sermon that could have been authored by a secular humanist. I left when during the Canon of the Mass he invited the children up to the altar and had them raise their hands over the Eucharist when he did and had them pray with him. Every altar server, lector, musician, and eucharistic minister was female. I eventually came back at the end to hear the closing hymn, some secular humanist song that’s only line was “go make a difference”.

I have several quesions:

1. Was he using the ritual for children’s masses?

This ritual allows the children to come around the altar and it prayers are broken into shorter parts with the children reciting some prayerful verse. It’s the Eucharistic prayer, but it’s broken up like the responsorial psalm is.

1. Did he ask children to say the words of consecration or just raise their hands over the altar?

This is not part of the rite for children’s liturgies, but it does not constitute an ilicit action either. It’s a novelty, not a sin. If the children say the words of consecration, that’s an entire different issue.

1. You said that he “ran around with musical instruments.”

If he is using the ritual for children’s masses, this is allowed. He must still preach, but he is allowed to do so at a level that will keep their attention and help them understand what he’s saying.

1. Was it a secular song or a religious song for children?

They may sound the same because the music is similar, but they are not the same. There are many religious songs written especially for children.

You may want to watch the children’s hour on EWTN in the afternoons. There is a Benedictine Monk whose name escapes me right now, I believe he is both a monk and a priest, he uses all kinds of children’s religious songs and methods. He’s a good example of what can be done in liturgies for children.

Many years ago I ran religious education for several parishes and the adults often became very confused when we used the ritual for children’s masses. It is very different. But it is approved.

One has to be careful not to do an overkill. Then the purpose of the ritual is lost, even if the priest means well.

I know that in our parish our pastor celebrates all the Life Teen masses, because the two other Brothers who are priests don’t know how to do it properly. One tends to preach to the teens as if he were talkign to people in their 50s and the other tends to underestimate the kids and turn the mass into Romper Room. It takes a special gift to know how to celebrate mass for children and teens and keep it sane. Fortunately for us, our friars get along very well and do not get offended over the fact that one of them does it better than the rest.

As long as the priest used the ritual for children and didn’t violate the rubrics, he may have gotten a little carried away, but it’s not a disaster. If he had the children recite the words of consecration, that’s a violation of the rubrics.

JR

 

[NeedImprovement]

That’s what I said above. You must have bread and wine. Though in some cases you may use grape juice and wine. The reason that the Church allows grape juice is because if left to ferment, grapejuice will become wine.

This is allowed for cases when the priest, for health reasons, cannot consume alcohol.

JR

No one is saying you didn’t say that JReducation and I didn’t mean to imply so. I thought it best to give the specifics here.

Fr. John Corapi told of a parish he once visited that home-made its own communion bread. On the surface , he said, it looked like a good idea…until he asked about the recipe : flour, eggs nutmeg …at this point Fr. corapi’s audience started to laugh and Fr. Corapi adamantly cut in and said, “Don’t laugh: For twelve years that parish hasn’t had Holy Communion.”

…hope that clarifies my objective. God Bless.

 

[una_fides]

Paul is telling Titus to avoid running the risk of becoming contaminated by people’s poor behaviour or sin and he makes a list of sins that apparently were a problem in Titus circumstances…Avoid situations that do harm to your spiritual life. Those situations are not going to be the same for everyone.

My example, a person who is a womanizer is more of a problem for me than a priest who likes rock music at mass. The rock music doesn’t interfere with my devotion the Word of God or the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I hate rock music, but it doesn’t give me high blood presure either.

By the way, in you list above, Life Teen Mass are not forbidden. I’m not sure who told you that. But you can tell them from someone who works for a Catholic diocese that such is not the case.

JR

Thanks for the exegesis. I agree with pretty-much everything except for my practical conclusions, I would have to say that priests who like rock music at mass likely have other deficiencies in their formation and Catholic faith. If they teach heretical things or profane the holy sacrifice of the Mass by irreverent music, then they should be confronted about it.

In my list of grievances that I’ve observed, I never said that life teen masses were explicitly forbidden by the Church; however, in my opinion they most certainly should be. To my knowledge, Pope Benedict has provided his clear pastoral guidance as to what types of music are best suited for Mass and rock music was certainly not in the list of approved styles. In fact, I’m pretty sure he had some not so good things to say about rock music. Moreover, introducing these more modern styles of music not only is not properly suited for mass, but it also makes the Mass into a less reverent and more common everyday thing. I happen to like rock music personally and listen to it outside of Mass, but it causes me a great scandal when it is incorporated into the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Romans 14 is pretty clear regarding causing offenses to other fellow Christians. Even if rock music were permitted for Mass, it should not be done so that it would not cause offense:
Rom 14:21, “It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother is offended, or scandalized, or made weak.”

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the exegesis. I agree with pretty-much everything except for my practical conclusions, I would have to say that priests who like rock music at mass likely have other deficiencies in their formation and Catholic faith. If they teach heretical things or profane the holy sacrifice of the Mass by irreverent music, then they should be confronted about it.

Not necessarily. Unless something is materially sinful, we must always give the person the benefit of the doubt that they may be trying to do some good, even if they are mistaken. Rock music is not materially sinful. Inappropriate for mass, yes, materially sinful, no.

As to Life Teen, my experience has been very good. As I posted some place. We have seven Brothers in our parish, three of them are also priests. Only one really knows how to celebrate the Life Teen mass. They have wonderful Christian music that is lively and appropriate for the younger crowd. But it is legitimate Christian music written for worship by people like John Michael Talbot and others of that school of music. It’s not the kind of music that you hear on your iPod, unless you record “On Eagles Wings” on your iPod. That’s one of those songs that I do like very much. Anothe favorite of mine from the Life Teen mass is “Here I am Lord”

The Holy Father is speaking about music that is meant for other environments that are not worship. He’s not insisting that we stop at music that was written 200 years ago. In fact, the Church has always encouraged the arts, especially sacred art. This includes music.

I don’t know if you got to see that last Youth Day that Benedict went to. They had beautiful contemporary Christian music. I’ve already heard some of the music for the Youth Day in Australia. Some of it is very beautiful. They’ve been running it on EWTN in bits and snippets, as I say.

The South African Catholic Conference has published a hymnal tht has music from the classics to the contemporary, really good stuff. We use it in my parish. It’s called “Worship”. It has everything from “Tatum Ergo” to “Eagles Wings”. It’s very well done.

Of course our friars avoid the Gregorian music in it, because of their holy rule, but they use a lot of the oldies but goodies, especially during Lent and Easter.

I guess many people are still using Glory and Praise or some such hymnal. There are better hymnals than that one.

JR