Irreverent Mass

[Ave_Maria_1]

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.

I do not ‘take’ communion in the hand; The Holy Eucharist is to be received and I do this on the tongue. And I don’t eat on Fridays either. But I live in novusordo land and a Mass with no abuses is rare. Some would suggest I skip going to Mass but I am NOT excused from Mass when it is valid even though there are illicit elements.

I go to daily Mass and I receive Our Lord! I would sacrifice much for this great grace and privilege. Many who have been deprived of the Mass will say that it makes no difference the holiness of the priest or the perfection of the Mass but if a valid Mass can be had, it is worth anything.

Sometimes we must live with what the Lord has provided for us even though less than perfect. I will not absent myself from the Eucharist as long as it can validly be obtained–bottom line.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Just because someone is trying to good doesn’t mean that what they are doing is good, and in fact, it could be very bad. The reading at Mass today (TLM) were that people would kill the apostles and think they were doing God’s service, but in reality they never knew Christ or the Father. Obviously murder is “materially sinful” but the point is that people can think they are doing right and really be doing wrong and the wrong they are doing can have very serious consequences.

For personal devotions, I think it is permissible for them to listen to CCM or other contemporary “worship” music as long as the lyrics do not promote false Protestant teachings (which is a danger since the music originated as, and is almost always, Protestant). The reason they call it “worship” music is because to Protestants that is how you worship God. They do not have the sacrifice of the Mass, and they do not know what true worship is. True worship is sacrifice. Just because music makes someone feel warm and fuzzy does not mean that it is pleasing to God or that it should be used in Mass. The same thing goes with upbeat music. The purpose of contemporary music not that it is suited to the Mass but that it entertains the people. The problem is that the Mass is not the place for entertainment. People in our entertainment-driven country have a difficulty with this idea because everything is so consumer oriented rather than focused on God and directed to the higher purpose. Any time that music takes the focus away from God and onto the performers, the music should not be used. period.

This is why the Church and the holy father has emphasized that gregorian chant is the type of music best suited to the Mass as it lifts the soul to experience the supernatural. Through quiet rather than through noise, the soul is able to experience what is beyond itself. God does not speak through the noise; he speaks when we are still and we can then know that he is God.

What is your response to my citation of Romans 14 that music which causes offense to many should not be used in Mass?

 

[JReducation]

Just because someone is trying to good doesn’t mean that what they are doing is good, and in fact, it could be very bad. The reading at Mass today (TLM) were that people would kill the apostles and think they were doing God’s service, but in reality they never knew Christ or the Father. Obviously murder is “materially sinful” but the point is that people can think they are doing right and really be doing wrong and the wrong they are doing can have very serious consequences.

For personal devotions, I think it is permissible for them to listen to CCM or other contemporary “worship” music as long as the lyrics do not promote false Protestant teachings (which is a danger since the music originated as, and is almost always, Protestant). The reason they call it “worship” music is because to Protestants that is how you worship God. They do not have the sacrifice of the Mass, and they do not know what true worship is. True worship is sacrifice. Just because music makes someone feel warm and fuzzy does not mean that it is pleasing to God or that it should be used in Mass. The same thing goes with upbeat music. The purpose of contemporary music not that it is suited to the Mass but that it entertains the people. The problem is that the Mass is not the place for entertainment. People in our entertainment-driven country have a difficulty with this idea because everything is so consumer oriented rather than focused on God and directed to the higher purpose. Any time that music takes the focus away from God and onto the performers, the music should not be used. period.

This is why the Church and the holy father has emphasized that gregorian chant is the type of music best suited to the Mass as it lifts the soul to experience the supernatural. Through quiet rather than through noise, the soul is able to experience what is beyond itself. God does not speak through the noise; he speaks when we are still and we can then know that he is God.

What is your response to my citation of Romans 14 that music which causes offense to many should not be used in Mass?

You’re not going to get an argument from me on any of this. First of all, what you’re saying is accurate. The soul does need a quiet resting place to hear the voice of God. I think that says it all.

Second, I do believe that there is much music out there that is not consistent with what actually happens in liturgy. That has to be eliminated.

Third, I believe that we do need to work on developing more Christian music that is appropriate for liturgy.

I don’t believe that the Pope Benedict really wants to stop at Gregorian chant. I believe that he’s using that as the model. In other words, he’s saying “Look here is a form of music that moves the sould to contemplation.”

If we look at the history of the Church, especially someone like Pope Julius who was a patron of the arts and the Benedictines too, there has always been a place in the Church for the arts. I don’t think that the Church is saying that only the arts of yesteryear have a place in the sacred.

I believe what it’s saying is that the sacred remains sacred and every art form that is intended to be used in the sacred has to be compatible with that transcendent spirituality of the liturgy. We are free to develop new forms of art, such as music and architecture, but we must make sure that it harmonizes with the transcedant so that there is a clear difference between entertainment and worship.

I’m not sure if I’m saying this clearly. I hope so. Good night for now.

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

Back to the original post: I can’t see how it is a sin to witness irreverence by someone over whom you have no authority.

I don’t see how it can possibly be a sin to satisfy your obligation by finding and attending the most reverent valid Mass you can find, to be as patient in enduring the faults of those you worship with as you can, including the celebrant, to respectfully ask for clarification when things seem amiss, and to inform the appropriate superiors when duty obliges.

It is virtuous to seek to know the truth and to evangelize others, as long as due respect is given to those who have authority over you, but it is not virtuous to try to put yourself into authority when authority has not been given to you. That’s where that line is.

I have sympathy for your position. I remember St. Therese becoming exasperated when one of the other sisters was making some repetitive sound with her rosary beads. St. Therese heroically made an effort to use the sound itself as something to meditate on, but she pointed out that this was not the prayer of silence. That wasn’t made available to her.

Sometimes, our needs go unmet and we are given great trials. There are Catholics in Saudi Arabia who might literally go years without having access to a Mass of any sort. Perhaps for their sake, you can do your best to be both reverent and patient with your current situation, as a model…and pray like crazy that your next pastor will turn things around!

There are reverent NO Masses, and with our current Holy Father, this seems to be getting particular attention. Good luck.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

I attend a parish which celebrates the Pauline Mass (I know that statement’s going to garner me quite a bit of criticism just by itself, but I’m going to come out and say it straight up), and for as long as I could understand what was happening, the Masses have remained reverent. Sometimes one of our four friars will use a bit of religious humor to begin his homily (usually related to the theme of the Scripture readings), but after that he will get to the meat of it, which is focused on the readings for the particular Sunday and Jesus’ words in Scripture. Same with our other friars, although one has used his homilies as a platform for his personal political beliefs (which I don’t think is very proper of him). So far as I have seen, the friars follow the rubrics and the proper care and reverence is shown for the Blessed Sacrament by both Ordinary Ministers and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; usually any irreverence is on the part of the laity in the congregation, though I would think it’s due to lack of instruction on how to appropriately receive Holy Communion. I have received on the tongue and in the hand (though mostly in the hand, but have received on the tongue when I have preferred it). Whatever method I have chosen to receive Him, I have done it with utmost reverence because I know Jesus is truly present, and I wouldn’t want to offend Him by doing anything other than consuming Him, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The music is a blending of traditional hymns and hymns that are more recent compositions, and of course we do use Latin occasionally (especially during Holy Thursday, when we sing St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Tantum Ergo”, which is a beautiful hymn; “Parce Domine” is one that we used this year for Ash Wednesday, as well as during Lent). I believe that, since we acquired a new music director at the parish about six years ago, the music has come to mean more to me than just words and notes, harmonies and descants. It’s about entering into the worship of God and the mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Heck, while we were singing the (English) verses of “Tantum Ergo” during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament through the church, I felt impelled to genuflect as the pastor slowly made his way past the choir corral, holding the ciborium beneath the cloth around his shoulders. It was a very emotional moment for me, since the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament had passed so near me.

One very good way of fostering devotion in our parish has been through First Friday Adoration (formerly overnight Adoration, which started immediately following the Saturday vigil Mass until just before the first Mass celebrated Sunday morning). I’ve tried my best to go each time, though sometimes I’m not always able to focus and pray. Very recently, a new element that has been brought to our Eucharistic Adoration is music; our parish music director has done a half-hour of music for an Audience of One, and both times it’s moved me to tears. It’s like having a little taste of the Banquet of Heaven for thirty minutes. Though the parish has seen changes in the position of the pastor and some of the music (we haven’t done any rock or secular music, though, it’s all been strictly liturgical), I believe that my parish has remained reverent and has effectively fostered my Catholic faith.

I’ve never been to what some people deem an “irreverent” Mass, at least not to my knowledge or that of other parishioners, although I have very limited knowledge right now of just what would constitute such a Mass. However, I don’t believe that I’m a person endowed with the authority or knowledge to deem a Mass irreverent or not. That, I believe, is best left to those with the authority and knowledge to judge correctly. I’m just a lay Catholic who, though a miserable sinner, is trying to walk more closely with her Lord and submit herself to the teachings of Holy Mother Church as taught by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[ethelzguy]

It seems to me, that the TLM tends to be over-romanticized on this forum, while each perceived “abuse” is dramatized to the extreme.

For every “clown Mass”, there are tens of thousands of Masses that are done properly daily and weekly around the world…yet we are constantly directed to the same tired, old websites depicting the same old Mass, over and over again.

From what I read here, I think there are some folks that would complain about ANY Mass, regardless of who, where, or how it was said.

 

[Jeanette_L]

It seems to me, that the TLM tends to be over-romanticized on this forum, while each perceived “abuse” is dramatized to the extreme.

For every “clown Mass”, there are tens of thousands of Masses that are done properly daily and weekly around the world…yet we are constantly directed to the same tired, old websites depicting the same old Mass, over and over again.

From what I read here, I think there are some folks that would complain about ANY Mass, regardless of who, where, or how it was said.

You picked up on that too, eh?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If I honestly felt that a mass was irreverent and insulting to God, why would I stay? I’d get up and leave. To stay there would be to insult God, and would be a mortal sin, IMHO.

But I have to qualify that to say that I don’t think anything I’ve ever seen at a mass fell into that category. Especially not nit-picky things like guitars in the choir.

Now, if the priest was dressed as a clown, I would have a hard time not making a scene, and I’d walk out in protest. But in real life I don’t think those kind of things happen. They only seem to happen in the imaginations of some people who post on CAF.

 

[EasterJoy]

If I honestly felt that a mass was irreverent and insulting to God, why would I stay? I’d get up and leave. To stay there would be to insult God, and would be a mortal sin, IMHO.

But I have to qualify that to say that I don’t think anything I’ve ever seen at a mass fell into that category. Especially not nit-picky things like guitars in the choir.

Now, if the priest was dressed as a clown, I would have a hard time not making a scene, and I’d walk out in protest. But in real life I don’t think those kind of things happen. They only seem to happen in the imaginations of some people who post on CAF.

I have seen posts of the “clown Mass”, but it is so far beyond the pale of anything that I’ve seen or heard of that I thought for me to view a tape of it would have an effect like slowing down to view a car wreck.

So here’s my question: can a Mass be valid and sacrilegious at the same time?

On Sunday, when you have an obligation to attend Mass and yet the only Mass available is offense to you, does that remove your obligation? Under what circumstances must you remain? In good conscience, under what circumstances must you leave?

There are also options in-between; for instance, if Holy Communion were not being distributed reverently, there is the option to stay at Mass, but not receive Holy Communion. Under what circumstances is that a good or a bad option?

I’m just curious to read what people think.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have seen posts of the “clown Mass”, but it is so far beyond the pale of anything that I’ve seen or heard of that I thought for me to view a tape of it would have an effect like slowing down to view a car wreck.

So here’s my question: can a Mass be valid and sacrilegious at the same time?

On Sunday, when you have an obligation to attend Mass and yet the only Mass available is offense to you, does that remove your obligation? Under what circumstances must you remain? In good conscience, under what circumstances must you leave?

There are also options in-between; for instance, if Holy Communion were not being distributed reverently, there is the option to stay at Mass, but not receive Holy Communion. Under what circumstances is that a good or a bad option?

I’m just curious to read what people think.

If the ‘only option’ was a priest dressed as a clown saying mass, I would leave, miss my Sunday obligation, and go join the line at the bishop’s office to complain about the sacrilige. When the majority of the faithful in the diocese show up at the bishop’s office to complain, he’ll have to do something.

If the bishop refuses to help, then I would ask the other people in line to complain if they would carpool with me next Sunday so I could get to mass somewhere else. (You said this was the only option, so presumably in this scenario I don’t have a car and the next closest parish isn’t accessible to me).

If there wasn’t anyone else complaining to carpool with, I would have to go back and reconsider why I’m the only one objecting. Am I the only holy person left on earth, or am I full of pride? If I’m the only one complaining, then hopefully I’d come to realize I was full of pride and reconsider my objections.

But that wouldn’t happen with a priest dressed as a clown. If I’m the only one complaining, the problem must be something completely different. And the it’s probably a problem with me, not with the mass being sacriligious.

 

[JuanCarlos]

It seems to me, that the TLM tends to be over-romanticized on this forum, while each perceived “abuse” is dramatized to the extreme.

For every “clown Mass”, there are tens of thousands of Masses that are done properly daily and weekly around the world…yet we are constantly directed to the same tired, old websites depicting the same old Mass, over and over again.

From what I read here, I think there are some folks that would complain about ANY Mass, regardless of who, where, or how it was said.

The only thing I haven’t noticed on this forum is real traditionalism. It seems like everyone is simply a conservative- although Semper Fidelus seems like a traditionalist. People are content with communion on the hand, eucharistic ministers, and in this very thread people have tried to justify a priest inviting people around the altar during consecration, dancing and secular-music during Mass on the grounds that it is “approved”. There is almost no true traditionalism on this forum

 

[ProVobis]

Sometimes we must live with what the Lord has provided for us even though less than perfect. I will not absent myself from the Eucharist as long as it can validly be obtained–bottom line.

Yes, but shouldn’t one be properly disposed in order to obtain the full graces that come with the sacrament? If you’re ok with the dancing and prancing that goes on, assuming that you’ve fasted and in the state of grace, then you’re good to go. Otherwise you may need to find a more tranquil Mass, even if you have to travel a distance, in order to be disposed properly. Either way, you’ve still fulfilled your Easter duty, though.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I don’t see how you can know a Mass will be irreverent until you are actually attending that Mass.

 

[JimO]

If the Eucharist is valid and you are seeking to receive Christ, I can’t see how it would be sinful. If you were intending to be irreverent, then there could be a problem in any circumstance.

 

[ProVobis]

For every “clown Mass”, there are tens of thousands of Masses that are done properly daily and weekly around the world…

Who’s to say “clown Masses” are not done properly? How do we know they don’t bring thousands into the Church that might have otherwise stayed at home? Why are you trying to dissociate yourself from something that may indeed be closer to God than anything you’ve experienced? The same Church that brought you an English Novus Ordo that you “can understand better” has also given you Masses of other cultures that you may or may not like. If the bishop is ok with the clown Masses, then you don’t have to apologize to your friends. Maybe those who attend “clown Masses” have a problem with yours so let’s not be so hasty to condemn them. De gustibus.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t see how you can know a Mass will be irreverent until you are actually attending that Mass.

If the irreverence is habitual and the celebrant unapologetic, I don’t think it would be a logical leap if you assumed the next week would be the same.

The only thing I haven’t noticed on this forum is real traditionalism. It seems like everyone is simply a conservative- although Semper Fidelus seems like a traditionalist. People are content with communion on the hand, eucharistic ministers, and in this very thread people have tried to justify a priest inviting people around the altar during consecration, dancing and secular-music during Mass on the grounds that it is “approved”. There is almost no true traditionalism on this forum

OK, so we’re agreed that by traditional, we aren’t talking about being in keeping with sacred Tradition, but rather that we favor liturgical forms that existed prior to Vatican II. Some of us here aren’t traditional, but are only here to hear topics addressed that surround those traditional forms.

I’m not traditional, in that sense. As for me, I look at traditionalists as an analogy (not exact) to spiritual Trappists or Cistercians. To them, the newer forms are distracting and noisy. Their particular gift requires a more austere form. I look at the TLM as if it were one kind of a monastery, while the NO is a monastery of another charism. These are both gifts to the Church. I might even go on retreat and find great profit at the “TLM monastery.” I find the age and depth of it inspiring. But as to living in one or the other, so far I am solidly in the NO charism. Obviously, though, I would not disdain either, if either one were the only alternative.

 

[una_fides]

Who’s to say “clown Masses” are not done properly? How do we know they don’t bring thousands into the Church that might have otherwise stayed at home? Why are you trying to dissociate yourself from something that may indeed be closer to God than anything you’ve experienced? The same Church that brought you an English Novus Ordo that you “can understand better” has also given you Masses of other cultures that you may or may not like. If the bishop is ok with the clown Masses, then you don’t have to apologize to your friends. Maybe those who attend “clown Masses” have a problem with yours so let’s not be so hasty to condemn them. De gustibus.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or serious with this post. Here’s a site that has a video of a clown mass and has a statement put out by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship approved by JP2: romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2006/12/a_sacrilegious_.html

After it lists a host of different types of abuses, here is it’s conclusion:
"None of these things can bring good results. The consequences are–and cannot fail to be–the impairing of the unity of Faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions."

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Who’s to say “clown Masses” are not done properly? How do we know they don’t bring thousands into the Church that might have otherwise stayed at home? Why are you trying to dissociate yourself from something that may indeed be closer to God than anything you’ve experienced? The same Church that brought you an English Novus Ordo that you “can understand better” has also given you Masses of other cultures that you may or may not like. If the bishop is ok with the clown Masses, then you don’t have to apologize to your friends. Maybe those who attend “clown Masses” have a problem with yours so let’s not be so hasty to condemn them. De gustibus.

Are you saying that clown Masses can be reverent? Since when are clowns a cultural group? If a Bishop said that Nazism was okey-dokey, would that make it okay

 

[una_fides]

I am starting so sense some anti-traditionalists on a traditionalist thread. For any Catholic who is antagonistic towards Tradition, I would recommend to learn about the Catholic faith and especially the fact that what makes someone Catholic is that they adhere to Tradition. In the 2000 years of the Church’s history, innovation has never been sought after in regards to the liturgy. In times past, the faithful were infuriated by even suggesting minor modifications to the sacred rite. The obvious reason is that we are preserving the teachings of Christ–not trying to re-create them or re-discover them. By “holding fast to the traditions that we have received” (2 Thes 2:15), we preserve the teachings of Christ. To love the Church is to love Tradition. To hate Tradition is to hate the Church.

P.S. by Tradition and traditional Catholicism I am not referring to schismatic groups that do not adhere to Vatican II. I am referring to Catholics who embrace the Catholic heritage and are not trying to re-write historical Catholic teachings and practices.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am referring to Catholics who embrace the Catholic heritage and are not trying to re-write historical Catholic teachings and practices.

Besides the fact that there are difference of opinion as to what that means, it is fully legitimate to prefer one of two valid forms because it supports your personal spiritual growth better. No one should have to apologize because they prefer the TLM.

Second, communion in the hand and the widespread practice of reserving the Blessed Sacrament in private homes was taken away at some point. I kind of doubt that the faithful were thrilled with the decision, but it was based on sound reasons. Innovation is not bad or good, in and of itself. It depends on the pastoral reason for having made the changes.