B
bobzills
Guest
You seem to be forgetting that this conference was given the apostolic blessing by the Pope.
- Status
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Just because an organization, individual, community or whatever get an apostolic blessing from the pope. Does not give them free rein to (I’m going to sound like a ultra-traditionalist) disregard sensible, respectful, proper taste, correct norms and go overboard with wildness and disrespect. I’m suprised at myself for taking such a position, HOWEVER the fact remains that this “dancing” was not proper. It looked like it was drug induced wild movement.
A reminder to everybody, including myself. Who am I to judge? What we consider not proper might be perfectly okay with God. Recall the scripture passage where Jesus said I rather have you hot or cold, than lukewarm. Because anything else he would spit out of his mouth. (The Book of Revelation, I think)
A reminder to everybody, including myself. Who am I to judge? What we consider not proper might be perfectly okay with God. Recall the scripture passage where Jesus said I rather have you hot or cold, than lukewarm. Because anything else he would spit out of his mouth. (The Book of Revelation, I think)
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
- Such speculation is unnecessary. The Vicar of Christ is opposed to abuses and liberated the traditional Mass.
- According to your logic, we ought to be tolerant of the same abuses Pope Benedict has condemned.
B
bobzills
Guest
As far as I can see, as far as this Congress was concerned, the Pope gave no indication of any concern for charismatic abuses. In fact, it was quite the contrary, his words and his apostolic blessing gave strong support to the 12th International Congress of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowships, which was specifically aimed to support the mission of these charismatic groups. The Pope conferred his apostolic blessing on the assembly.The Pope said that the congress “indicates the urgent priority to appeal for a wide cooperation in Christian formation and a powerful proclamation of the Gospel to the world, with a marked missionary style, with concern for the poor, the suffering and the excluded.” The congress was attended by Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, new prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, and Archbishop Stanislaw Rylko, and I don’t see where they opposed anything of the Congress. On the contrary, the congress was wholeheartedly supported by the Vatican.
So I am not buying your characterisation of it.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to have to piggyback with Bob on this one. We can’t always tell what the Holy See likes or dislikes just from their publications. We have to look at their actions to interpret their publications correctly.
Man people on CAF blasted the mass at Washington, DC when the Pope was in the USA. In a recent publication by one of the Cardinals, it seemed that the Pope found some very beautiful things in it that he liked.
In the NY mass which many people praised as the epitome of good taste in liturgy, the Bishops had to come back and rebuke certain public figures for receiving communion without permission from the Bishop, because of their stance on issues that are in conflict with the Church. The Pope did not like that and apparently made it known.
Maybe His Holiness is looking at certain things that we’re missing. If the Holy See gave the Congress a thumbs up, that does not mean that there may not have been certain elements in the Congress that they appreciate it. They are talking about the Congress as a whole. The can still come back and say, that there were one or two incidents at the Congress that they did not appreciate and wante corrected.
One of the things that is very interesting about the Holy See is that it looks at the large picture and at the pieces. While it may give its blessing to the large picture it may also critique small parts or the other way around, as was the way in Washington.
According to Cardinal Sean, OFM, Cap, what the Pope liked about the mass in DC was that it was representative of the people of that diocese. He seems to have communicated that to his friend the Cardinal of Boston.
Check out the Cardinal’s blog.
As far as the Congress is concerned, we may be looking at it through a different filter than the Vatican. The Vatican does not always apply its own declarations to the letter. They are very good at keeping to the spirit of their declarations and finding ways of applying that spirit to situations that are not in keeping with the letter of their declarations.
In other words, they are very good at trying to see the good in many situations. They are not as rigid as the laity is.
JR
C
Cat
Guest
Isn’t that just like a loving father?I’m going to have to piggyback with Bob on this one. We can’t always tell what the Holy See likes or dislikes just from their publications. We have to look at their actions to interpret their publications correctly.
Man people on CAF blasted the mass at Washington, DC when the Pope was in the USA. In a recent publication by one of the Cardinals, it seemed that the Pope found some very beautiful things in it that he liked.
In the NY mass which many people praised as the epitome of good taste in liturgy, the Bishops had to come back and rebuke certain public figures for receiving communion without permission from the Bishop, because of their stance on issues that are in conflict with the Church. The Pope did not like that and apparently made it known.
Maybe His Holiness is looking at certain things that we’re missing. If the Holy See gave the Congress a thumbs up, that does not mean that there may not have been certain elements in the Congress that they appreciate it. They are talking about the Congress as a whole. The can still come back and say, that there were one or two incidents at the Congress that they did not appreciate and wante corrected.
One of the things that is very interesting about the Holy See is that it looks at the large picture and at the pieces. While it may give its blessing to the large picture it may also critique small parts or the other way around, as was the way in Washington.
According to Cardinal Sean, OFM, Cap, what the Pope liked about the mass in DC was that it was representative of the people of that diocese. He seems to have communicated that to his friend the Cardinal of Boston.
Check out the Cardinal’s blog.
As far as the Congress is concerned, we may be looking at it through a different filter than the Vatican. The Vatican does not always apply its own declarations to the letter. They are very good at keeping to the spirit of their declarations and finding ways of applying that spirit to situations that are not in keeping with the letter of their declarations.
In other words, they are very good at trying to see the good in many situations. They are not as rigid as the laity is.
JR
A loving father wants his children to be “excellent” and therefore, will work with them to help them achieve excellence in all their endeavors: sports, arts, academics, chores, etc. A loving father will not allow a slipshod effort or excuse deliberate rebellion, or ignore something that is riddled with mistakes and label it acceptable or good.
But on the other hand, a loving father will praise the effort and the job that is done, even if it is not perfect. He will not find fault with every little thing. If there is error, a loving father will find a way to lovingly and gently guide the child so that the next time, the likelihood of the error happening is decreased. And a loving father will assume that the child meant well and had good motives, even if the work didn’t turn out well and good. A loving father will NOT assume that the child deliberately made a mess out the work.
A very good motto for working with children is “praise the child to success.” I have found that this approach works wonders with children and teenagers of all ages. I think it also works with us and the Pope!
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Cat,
WOW! I really liked your father analogy. How much more so, since Pope Benedict XVI (and all the Popes) are also called Holy FATHER. I think this is one of the better explanations that hopefully puts to rest debate about who is more Catholic the laity or the Holy Father.
I don’t think at this time, I’ll add any more responses. Unless something really moves me to comment. Again Cat, great reply.
WOW! I really liked your father analogy. How much more so, since Pope Benedict XVI (and all the Popes) are also called Holy FATHER. I think this is one of the better explanations that hopefully puts to rest debate about who is more Catholic the laity or the Holy Father.
I don’t think at this time, I’ll add any more responses. Unless something really moves me to comment. Again Cat, great reply.
J
JReducation
Guest
CATIsn’t that just like a loving father?
A loving father wants his children to be “excellent” and therefore, will work with them to help them achieve excellence in all their endeavors: sports, arts, academics, chores, etc. A loving father will not allow a slipshod effort or excuse deliberate rebellion, or ignore something that is riddled with mistakes and label it acceptable or good.
But on the other hand, a loving father will praise the effort and the job that is done, even if it is not perfect. He will not find fault with every little thing. If there is error, a loving father will find a way to lovingly and gently guide the child so that the next time, the likelihood of the error happening is decreased. And a loving father will assume that the child meant well and had good motives, even if the work didn’t turn out well and good. A loving father will NOT assume that the child deliberately made a mess out the work.
A very good motto for working with children is “praise the child to success.” I have found that this approach works wonders with children and teenagers of all ages. I think it also works with us and the Pope!
I think we really understand each other and the Holy See. You’re analogy really synthesizes what I was trying to say. Thanks for a great post and response.
JR
U
una_fides
Guest
They are abuses because they deviate from the rubrics. For any priest or bishop to willfully deviate from the rubrics constitutes gravely sinful matter. The Church puts out the rubrics, and the priests are under the authority of the Church and her laws to which they swear obedience.
Furthermore, an individual’s subjective response to liturgical abuse does not justify such action. For example, let’s say that someone would respond “positively” to human sacrifice performed during Mass. Perhaps they say that it would help them to better understand the sacrifice of Christ. Should a priest therefore be permitted to deviate from the law so long as someone says they would respond positively?
Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.
B
bobzills
Guest
But it looks like the good Catholic Bishop Remi de Roo does not agree with you on that.
I didn’t see any indication of human sacrifice at this Mass.
youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY
Perhaps you are confusing this Mass with events occurring in a film by Mel Gibson, who is known for his fondness for preVatican II Catholic Tradition.
U
una_fides
Guest
I’m not sure you are being serious. But incase you are, here you go:
Bishop Remi de Roo is not the Pope, nor does his opinion determine anything. There have been many heretical bishops throughout the history of the Church who have denied many of her necessary dogmas. During the Arian heresy in the early Church, most of the bishops actually succumbed to this heresy and denied the deity of Christ and the blessed Trinity, which is the very foundation of the Christian faith. This in no way determines nor negates the truth Catholic faith. During that time, St. Athanasius wrote the if the number of those faithful to tradition were reduced to just a handful then they would be the true Church of Christ.
My comments on human sacrifice were an example to disprove the your argument, which was that such a mass is justified because someone received a positive reaction to it. A careful reading will demonstrate that.
U
una_fides
Guest
We were on the topic of liturgical music before as well as reverence at Mass. Here are a few excepts from the papal encyclical defining and explaining sacred music:
"Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God. We do not touch separately on the abuses in this matter which may arise. Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them, one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise – the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music. …
And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple. …
Pope Piux X, 1903, Tra le Sollecitudini adoremus.org/TraLeSollecitudini.html#anchor40134803
"Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God. We do not touch separately on the abuses in this matter which may arise. Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them, one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise – the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music. …
And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple. …
- Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality. It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it. …
- These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own…
Pope Piux X, 1903, Tra le Sollecitudini adoremus.org/TraLeSollecitudini.html#anchor40134803
P
Podo2005
Guest
B
bobzills
Guest
There was no human sacrifice in this Mass or in any other Catholic Mass in the USA. Human sacrifice appears in the movies of the ultra-Traditional leaning Catholic filmmaker Mel Gibson and really has no place in an argument concerning the appropriateness of a modern Catholic Mass.
As far as I know, Bishop Remi de Roo is listed as a retired bishop in good standing in the diocese of Victoria and I don’t see any indication that this Mass presented any problem or cause fr condern to the authorities at the Vatican.
B
bobzills
Guest
These are the teachings of Pope Pius X. However, it looks to me like the Catholic Church today has changed his teachings in many respects.Take for example, the teaching on the use of sacred music in the liturgy. How does one explain the acceptance by the Vatican of the mariachi band Masses, the Peter, Paul and Mary folk Masses, the charismatic Masses, the approval of the charismatic Catholic Congresses, and the words of support from the Pope, the rock band Masses? Recently, I went to a Mass at the local RCC and at the altar there were two huge speakers, the size of a standard refrigerator. And there all kinds of other electronic instrumentation there as well. And during he whole Mass. there was nothing but this terrible, loud rock music blaring forth. Obviously, at this point in time, the RC authorities have discarded the teaching of Pope Pius X on the issue of sacred music during the liturgy and it is no longer in effect in many of the Catholic Churches and Masses today.
J
JReducation
Guest
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. But this was in effect before Pius X. Hubly We Adore Thee, Oh Sacred Head Surrounded, A Mighty Fortress hae been sung in Catholic Churches for a very long time and they are not Gregorian chant.
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.
He does’t go into great detail as to how the Benedictines rescued it from disappearance etc, because it is not necessary.
But he is concerned as were the Benedictines of long ago, that it can disappear if we do not have an appreciation for its beauty and its place in Church history.
This does not mean a ban on all other music, nor does it mean the Catholic Church wants the mass to tun into a concert. A concert is just that, a concert.
When we first started to use songs in the vernacular, not only in English, there ws a shortage of good modern music and people borrowed from the secular sector. But after 40 years, we do have amny good hymnals in the vernacular with good music that is both contemporary, but follows the rules of reverence, connection with the liturgy, conneciton with scripture and song that are real prayers, not just entertainment.
If anyone is still using Peter Paul and Mary, they are stuck in history. Becasue we have liturgical music that is good. One has to take the trouble to find it.
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. Just go to a Benedictine Abbey and you’ll hear it or a Trappist abbey. There are some parishes that have choirs very well trained in it.
It does require training. It’s not easy to sing Gregorian chant. Many people think it’s just a matter of opening one’s mouth and singing. Nothing can be further from the truth. Choirs and monks who still sing it, train in it for a long time. Just reading the notation takes time to learn. It’s very different from the notation that we know.
JR
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
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?
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
The general consensus seems to indicate that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II gave their cautious support to it.
I’ve personally seen both some “good stuff” from Catholic Charismatic prayer groups and certain “distortions” in need of purification. I tried it out but it wasn’t my cup of tea.
If you’re familiar with Sister Emmanuel (who promotes that little place in Croatia), in a Ralph Martin interview, she speaks of her conversion experience coming about through a Pentecostal prayer group’s intercession.
There are many sites which speak of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement .I found the following link to provide an interesting read (it’s a little “take it with a grain of salt” - oriented though) : unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/WhatSpirit1.html
C
countertenor
Guest
I said no sin, because a person may not know how the NO is going to be performed, until it starts. Especially if one is traveling. I have had some scary experiences with parishes that I was unfamiliar with, and sometimes cultural things can seem irreverent if one is not familiar with the cultural ins and outs of an area (one reason I like the EF, but even with that I’ve seen things that seemed strange to me, but that were normal for that country…so I’ve been told). Should one get up and leave a “bad” mass? And use that as our excuse not to attend mass (people in large towns remember sometimes there are no other parishes for hours is rural areas). I think it’s up to us to focus harder on God and on our prayers and I know that can be difficult sometimes, but we must try…I think if there were to be a sin involved it would be to leave rather than try to make things better. Get involved it it’s all you have, try to improve the Liturgy. Teach people how to make it better. Show them without acting in a way they will perceive as arrogant or just mean.
It can be an uphill battle, but it can be done.
It can be an uphill battle, but it can be done.
G
GemmaRose
Guest
I’m not questioning nor discounting your experience, but what if you had been a visitor, or a traveller? You walk into this Mass and find all the amplifiers, etc. What if the Mass preceding it had been with the choir and more traditional music and maybe some chant? (Most ordinary parish choirs don’t do chant at all… not willing to do the work to learn it
)In such a circumstance, I’m sure you (not you personally
) would have started a thread entitled "You wouldn’t believe what I heard at Mass this morning!Sometimes, even parishioners who don’t read the bulletin to find out what’s going to be happening the next week will start grumbling, “Why do they have to baptize the baby during Mass?” or “If I knew this was going to be a Teen Mass, I wouldn’t have gone at this time.” (Well, read the bulletin!)
My point is this: If your faith is important enough for you, go to the Mass which helps you pray the best, whether it be TLM, NO or one with giant amplifiers. If you’re travelling, take a moment to call the parish ahead of time. (“I’ll be travelling in your area next weekend, and would just like to verify the Mass times, and, oh, by the way, can you tell me which Mass might have a choir, a youth Mass, etc.”)
P.S. I’m curious. Was this “rock” music Mass that you encountered intended for the parish youth? Did those in the congregation sing along? Did they provide the words for the congregation to join in? If they did, were at least the words of the songs more or less appropriate?
- Status