Irreverent Mass

[bobzills]

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.

The rule against liturgical dancing has been thrown out effectively and operationally in virtue of the fact that there has been and there is liturgical dancing at Catholic Masses, And no one has been excommunicated for it. In fact, Cardinal Mahony is in good and excellent standing in the RCC today.

 

[bobzills]

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.

Correct. That is why many Catholic attend the local Eucharistic and Charismatic conferences supported by their local bishops. For example, there is the annual Catholic Congress held each year in Los Angeles, under the auspices of His Excellency, Roger Cardinal Mahony, who is in good and excellent standing in the RCC today.

 

[JReducation]

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?

As I said above, if the Pope has not issued a statement, the absence of an answer is an answer. It’s up to the Bishops.

By the way, dressing as a clown is not a strong enough reason for excommunication. The rules for excommunication are very clear and this is not one of them. It may be an occasion for a stern rebuke by the Bishop, but not excommunication.

I’m not defending clowns at mass. I have never seen it done. But people say they have, so I’ll take their word for it. I believe it’s silly and inappropriate. I can understand someone else thinking that it’s a good way to show kids that Christ is loving and not to be feared. Personally, I can think of 50 other ways to show this to children. But this is not an offense that warrants excommunication and the intent of the person who did it may be different from what you’re thinking, a faith of clowns.

As to the Charismatic movement, the Church has given her official approval. All three Popes have: Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They have also given warning that the mass itself is not a charismatic mass. Charismatic is not a rite. They may not call it that. It may be a mass for a charismatic group, but not a charismatic mass.

Another warning that was given was not to confuse the gifts of the Spirit with pure emotionalism.

Futher warnings given were that prayer with people of other faiths is to be encouraged, but this does not mean that communion has been achieved. There may be communion in prayer, but not in sacris. This is to be kept clear by all who participate in Charismatic prayer meetings.

In addition, the Church recognizes the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that the Charismatic movement proclaims. Therefore, it would be against the faith fo the Church to denounce them. The Church also recognizes the value and importance of scripture based prayer. Therefore, it cannot and will not denounce that either. In fact, the Church has a long tradition that predates the Church of scripture based prayer, The Liturgy of the Hours.

It is the hope of the Church that through scripture based prayer, such as is used in Charismatic prayer meetings, people will return to using the scriptures for prayer, either this way or using the Liturgy of the Hours.

The Charismatic movement was invited for a prayer meeting at St. Peter’s Basilica by the Holy Father. He was very pleased by their devotion to the Holy Spirit, their spirit of joy, their faith in scripture, their trust in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and their faith in the Catholic Church. He also corrected soem statements which could be confusing, such as Baptism in the Spirit. He reminded them that everyone receives the Holy Spirit at the joint sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. That what one experiences is really an awareness of the Holy Spirit who has been there all along.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Here are a few links relevant to the support for and on the existence of liturgical dancing in the post Vatican II RCC:
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1653
youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A145rcNiederauerDancingGirls.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A092rcLA_CongressDances.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A072rcDancersInAltar_Akron.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A071rcRockChurch.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A096rcDancingJesuit.htm
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0698mm.htm

 

[JReducation]

Correct. That is why many Catholic attend the local Eucharistic and Charismatic conferences supported by their local bishops. For example, there is the annual Catholic Congress held each year in Los Angeles, under the auspices of His Excellency, Roger Cardinal Mahony, who is in good and excellent standing in the RCC today.

Remember, the Congress is not normative. What you need to ask is what is the norm for everyday parishes.

Just like the Papal masses and liturgies during his visit to the USA were not the norm. We’re not expected to use that mode every Sunday.

JR

 

[bobzills]

And, we’re supposed to believe that this took place at a legitimate Catholic Mass at a legitmate Catholic Church, right?

That could have been done in a studio, anywhere.
:

Like I said before, I really don’t see how anyone can credibly deny that there is liturgical dancing in Catholic Churches today.
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1653
youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A145rcNiederauerDancingGirls.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A092rcLA_CongressDances.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A072rcDancersInAltar_Akron.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A071rcRockChurch.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A096rcDancingJesuit.htm
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0698mm.htm

 

[PrayforMallory]

As for clownies, charismatics, etc.

We can ignore Vatican statements, writings by the Pope condemning these things, but somehow you can ignore Peter on those issues.

You can’t on denying the new Mass and Vatican II. That’s the rule in the Church at the moment. It’s frustrating. But…

We have a choice. I don’t want my children to grow up thinking Christianity is retarded. Therefore, they don’t go to the New Mass, where such things can happen.

 

[ethelzguy]

We have a choice. I don’t want my children to grow up thinking Christianity is retarded. Therefore, they don’t go to the New Mass, where such things can happen.

I’ve heard the NO blamed for many things, but causing our “children to grow up thinking Christianity is retarded” is a new low.

Perhaps we could start a thread on all the things that the traditionalist crowd blames Vatican II for? :newidea:

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’ve heard the NO blamed for many things, but causing our “children to grow up thinking Christianity is retarded” is a new low.

Perhaps we could start a thread on all the things that the traditionalist crowd blames Vatican II for? :newidea:

Well,

        I don't really know how to describe clown-business and the Charismatic movement, outside of the total lack of reason.

   I mean, Catholicism, isn't supposed to be banal is it?

The Protestant praise and worship stuff is kinda reminiscent of kids songs, just like the Protestant theology (at least the fundamentalist theology) is kind of analogous to a child’s understanding of things, from my point of view.

It’s certainly not as complex as our discussions.

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t really know how to describe clown-business and the Charismatic movement, outside of the total lack of reason.

Have you actually investigated either? If not, how do you comment on whether or not they are born of reason or not?

I don’t trash-talk the alleged Clown Masses or the Charismatic movment, because I have investigated or studied neither. Therefore I do not know whether or not they lack reason.

Do you?

 

[Jimsdun]

Well,

        I don't really know how to describe clown-business and the Charismatic movement, outside of the total lack of reason.

   I mean, Catholicism, isn't supposed to be banal is it?

The Protestant praise and worship stuff is kinda reminiscent of kids songs, just like the Protestant theology (at least the fundamentalist theology) is kind of analogous to a child’s understanding of things, from my point of view.

It’s certainly not as complex as our discussions.

You hit the nail on the head. I agree with you 1000%. I think the “Praise and Worship” stuff, especially when coupled with fundamentalist theology, causes the brain to atrophy.

 

[Cat]

Frankly, I can’t imagine any church, Protestant or Catholic, featuring clowns in a Mass, worship service, or even at a church social.

Fear of clowns has become a common psychological disorder. I know several adults and lots of little children who are terrified of clowns.

I’m not terrified of them, but I do find the whiteface and august clowns disturbing. I like the tramp clowns (e.g., Freddy the Freeloader, Emmett Kelley, etc.), but the others…shudder.

Anyway, I can appreciate the symbolism of being a “fool for Christ,” a Biblical concept. But I don’t think it seems like a proper role for a priest to assume in a Holy Mass. I think there would be other occasions (church social, school play day, etc.) where the priest could conceivably dress up like a clown to “amuse” the children (the ones who aren’t terrified). But it just doesn’t seem appropriate for Mass.

 

[Cat]

Well,

        I don't really know how to describe clown-business and the Charismatic movement, outside of the total lack of reason.

   I mean, Catholicism, isn't supposed to be banal is it?

The Protestant praise and worship stuff is kinda reminiscent of kids songs, just like the Protestant theology (at least the fundamentalist theology) is kind of analogous to a child’s understanding of things, from my point of view.

It’s certainly not as complex as our discussions.

Be careful not to make assumptions about Protestant theology. I appreciate that you specified “fundamentalist” theology. That’s a wise approach.

If you’ve ever read any of John Calvin’s works, they are not banal or childish. Institutes is massive and very intellectual (and hard to follow, if you ask me!).

Some of the more intellectual Protestant theologians include John R. W. Stott, Francis Schaeffer (RIP), and R.C. Sproul. These men have written some very thought-filled works that are worth studying to gain a better understanding of evangelical Protestant thinking.

R.C. Sproul in particular is actually very good at defending Catholicism!–yes! He often corrects Protestant “myths” about Catholicism and he praises Catholics for many of their truly Christian beliefs. His stumbling block with Catholicism are the doctrines of Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, and he has some very deep arguments against these doctrines that I would love to see Catholic theologians and apologists refute. I have to admit that I accept these two doctrines mainly because I accept the Authority of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, again I repeat that I appreciate your willingness to qualify your comments about Protestantism, and I encourage you to continue to be careful.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want my children to grow up thinking Christianity is retarded. Therefore, they don’t go to the New Mass, where such things can happen.

This comment is offensive at several levels.

1. The use of the term retarded is offensive to people who live with mental retardation and to their families. It represents an apriori assumption that retardation is deviant and responsible for flaws in character and choices, which is far from the truth.
2. It over generalizes. The fact that there are inappropriate events that have taken place at mass, does not mean that this is the norm. In another thread on CAF one would be surprised to see how many people love their parish as it is and are very happy with their priests and their liturgy. They give great testimonies of the holiness the find there.
3. It is in conflict with the Motu Proprio which clearly says that “**the total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” ** The Church recognizes and affirms that the Ordinary Form has both value and holiness. To try to hide this form in the closet and relate it to a developmental disability is to equate something that represents and communicates the Church’s holiness as a disability or developmental flaw. There is no place in the Motu Proprio for hiding or denying anyone access to the OF or the EF.
4. The other weakness in this statement is that it is discriminatory against a specific group of people who worship according to the Ordinary Form. It is not the New Mass. It is the Ordinary Form of the mass.
5. To decide that one is going to protect one’s children from the OF because it may lead them to believe that Catholicism is retarded is an offensive statement implying that those who worship using the OF are to be avoided becasue they are somehow defective, since the poster obviously considers mental retardation as a deffect. This is consistent with spiritual arrogance. “I thank God that I’m not like the rest of men.”
6. As the parent of a child with autism, I find this analogy offensive, despicable and inconsistent with love. One should be careful of one’s audience before opening one’s mouth.

JR

 

[NeedImprovement]

I used to belong to several non- Catholic , non- religion oriented forums. Some of the language used in those forums could become pretty atrocious (that’s actually putting it lightly).

The word “retard” or its abbreviated derivative -“tard” was commonly used by posters when they wished to insult another or imply idiocy on their behalf. Every time I saw it written I couldn’t help but wonder how a family member of someone with autism would feel if they were to read it.

Society would have us believe that the above is simply a common epithet now…well it isn’t - it’s a slur.

In some respects, our english language is being “hijacked” (as I heard one priest put it). When this happens,as JReducation’s previous post demonstrates, human dignity can become one of the casualties. We need to “take our language back”, or restore it to its proper use whenever we can.

…a good time for a reality check in this thread entitled Irreverent Mass. In case any of us were unsure, the previous post just gave us the definition of*** irreverent.***

 

[PrayforMallory]

I used to belong to several non- Catholic , non- religion oriented forums. Some of the language used in those forums could become pretty atrocious (that’s actually putting it lightly).

The word “retard” or its abbreviated derivative -“tard” was commonly used by posters when they wished to insult another or imply idiocy on their behalf. Every time I saw it written I couldn’t help but wonder how a family member of someone with autism would feel if they were to read it.

Society would have us believe that the above is simply a common epithet now…well it isn’t - it’s a slur.

In some respects, our english language is being “hijacked” (as I heard one priest put it). When this happens,as JReducation’s previous post demonstrates, human dignity can become one of the casualties. We need to “take our language back”, or restore it to its proper use whenever we can.

…a good time for a reality check in this thread entitled Irreverent Mass. In case any of us were unsure, the previous post just gave us the definition of*** irreverent.***

I was describing two movements. Bad choice of words? Yes, but I clearly meant it in a casual way.

What else could I say?

Several members in my family (won’t say who), are severely mentally handicapped. They don’t have autism, but they do suffer from dementia. Clearly, I didn’t mean it in the sense it is being implied. I feel bad for offending, yet at the same time, I feel like there is the issue of oversensitivity here. I wanted to edit it out, but I couldn’t. Just replace the word with “idiotic,” and you can get my point just as easily.

 

[PrayforMallory]

This comment is offensive at several levels.

1. The use of the term retarded is offensive to people who live with mental retardation and to their families. It represents an apriori assumption that retardation is deviant and responsible for flaws in character and choices, which is far from the truth.
2. It over generalizes. The fact that there are inappropriate events that have taken place at mass, does not mean that this is the norm. In another thread on CAF one would be surprised to see how many people love their parish as it is and are very happy with their priests and their liturgy. They give great testimonies of the holiness the find there.
3. It is in conflict with the Motu Proprio which clearly says that “**the total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” ** The Church recognizes and affirms that the Ordinary Form has both value and holiness. To try to hide this form in the closet and relate it to a developmental disability is to equate something that represents and communicates the Church’s holiness as a disability or developmental flaw. There is no place in the Motu Proprio for hiding or denying anyone access to the OF or the EF.
4. The other weakness in this statement is that it is discriminatory against a specific group of people who worship according to the Ordinary Form. It is not the New Mass. It is the Ordinary Form of the mass.
5. To decide that one is going to protect one’s children from the OF because it may lead them to believe that Catholicism is retarded is an offensive statement implying that those who worship using the OF are to be avoided becasue they are somehow defective, since the poster obviously considers mental retardation as a deffect. This is consistent with spiritual arrogance. “I thank God that I’m not like the rest of men.”
6. As the parent of a child with autism, I find this analogy offensive, despicable and inconsistent with love. One should be careful of one’s audience before opening one’s mouth.

JR

1.Ok. Bad choice of words. Already admitted it. Since you are the father of an autistic child I can see how you’re sensitive about it. As the son of a man with dementia, I can be a little hardened, unfortunately. I sinned by writing it, so forgive me.

1. It is too much of a generalization yes. That’s true. You’re right. I was careless and I didn’t think about the post. However, it’s what I’ve seen. I’ve never seen the OF celebrated according to the norms the Pope has laid down. I also never denied its objective sanctity. I was merely saying that the chances of something going on there is too high for me to put my own child into that situation. Like I’ve said in other posts, if I went to your Chuch, I might feel differently.
2. I never said that it should be denied. I never said it should be suppressed, and I never said it should be considered objectively inferior. In practice in the Churches I’ve experienced, it tends to certain things (clapping, guitar, dancing, weak homilies, EEM’s being casual, really banal 70’s music, etc.). That said, I specifically know of a Holy Priest in his 80’s who celebrates it, and he’s a great man.
3. Ordinary Form, not New Mass. I’ll use that phrase only from now on.

I guess I should issue a press release:
I'm not running for the Democratic nomination.

 

[JReducation]

I was describing two movements. Bad choice of words? Yes, but I clearly meant it in a casual way.

What else could I say?

Several members in my family (won’t say who), are severely mentally handicapped. They don’t have autism, but they do suffer from dementia. Clearly, I didn’t mean it in the sense it is being implied. I feel bad for offending, yet at the same time, I feel like there is the issue of oversensitivity here. I wanted to edit it out, but I couldn’t. Just replace the word with “idiotic,” and you can get my point just as easily.

I accept that retarded was a bad choice of words and that you mean it when you say so.

But going back to the topic, have you ever considered that if the Church says that there is holiness in the Ordinary Form, then there must be truth to this?

I don’t mean that everyone must find comfort or spiritual nutrition in the ordinary form. I’m glad that we have both the ordinary and the extraordinary form.

I simply mean that should we consider that there is holiness there, if the Church says that there is, rather than assume that it’s impossible, because there are nut jobs about there? There are going to be nut jobs anywhere in life. Don’t you think? That doesn’t translate into eveyrthing is wrong if there is an inappropriate action on the part of some.

Get what I mean?

JR

PS. Great minds think alike, so they say. I was writing my post as you were writing yours. You’ve answered my questions.

That being said, I would only add that there are many great parishes that use the oridnary form. Not everyone is out there to sabbotage it. I’m an old man and have been around a lot and have seen many great things in the form and in the parishes that use it.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Have you actually investigated either? If not, how do you comment on whether or not they are born of reason or not?

I don’t trash-talk the alleged Clown Masses or the Charismatic movment, because I have investigated or studied neither. Therefore I do not know whether or not they lack reason.

Do you?

I was raised in a charismatic, “word-based,” protestant denomination.

“I just know the Lord’s gonna come back before 1996!”

My favorite phrase.

It’s completely based on a lack of reason. The clergy are specifically anti-intellectual in those spheres. It’s based on this emotional frenzy rather than an internalized faith. If you do try to internalize like I did, you are immediately looked at awry because you are daring to use the intellect instead of emotion.

You are led up there to speak in tongues. Why? So that you grow in faith? No, so you get something. It’s not a coincidence they are preaching prosperity gospel in that Church. The whole religion is dependent on what you get, never what you give.

You can disprove the “gift” of tongues in 5 minutes. How? Next time you are in a charismatic service, take into account all the factors that go into the outbursts of tongues:

1. When people spoke in tongues, I could invariably tell who it was everytime. Each person who speaks in tongues has a “signature.” The same syllable groups are uttered by the same individuals every time. So I could hear, “Ee-kon-dai, Ee-kon-dai, Ee-kon-dai,” and immediately know who it was, every time. I could also hear “Shun-da-da-da-da-da” repeated over and over again and know who it is.
2. When the music plays, identify the more dramatic parts. When the music reaches the peak of drama, that’s when you’ll find the most people speaking in tongues.
3. The sermon. The preacher very rarely begins in a state of frenzy. To the contrary, the sermon builds just like a song, and just like the song, once he’s built the crowd up enough and has sufficient control of their emotions, he crosses a threshold and goes into an irrational fit, with the crowd falling suit, with their horrified children sitting there staring.

I don’t pay much attention to claims that the Charismatic comes from the devil. It stems from the fact that the people are uneducated country folks at heart. I don’t mean to slam them, but it’s true. My relatives were uneducated country folks. They were good people, but they automatically attributed study to satanism.

I know Protestants well. I also dabbled in Calvinism as a teen.

The Protestants today are not well represented by Calvin, Luther, etc. The “doctrinal” Protestant Churches are not passing their faith on to the next generation.

The Non-denominationals, Pentecostals, etc. They have vitality and are growing. The Mormons (not really Protestant I know) are growing. The Lutherans?

Sociologically speaking, when we’re 40, there is going to have be a drastic, sharp, and visible contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism if we are going to maintain momentum and evangelize. I don’t see it as a coincidence that the Traditional movement is gaining steam as the mainline Protestants wither.

We have a superior Catholic culture. There’s no reason to minimize it, when we can share it with the rest of the world and encourage them to share in those treasures.

This thread is very controversial, so before you reply, make sure you aren’t too steamed at me because of my views.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I accept that retarded was a bad choice of words and that you mean it when you say so.

But going back to the topic, have you ever considered that if the Church says that there is holiness in the Ordinary Form, then there must be truth to this?

I don’t mean that everyone must find comfort or spiritual nutrition in the ordinary form. I’m glad that we have both the ordinary and the extraordinary form.

I simply mean that should we consider that there is holiness there, if the Church says that there is, rather than assume that it’s impossible, because there are nut jobs about there? There are going to be nut jobs anywhere in life. Don’t you think? That doesn’t translate into eveyrthing is wrong if there is an inappropriate action on the part of some.

Get what I mean?

JR

PS. Great minds think alike, so they say. I was writing my post as you were writing yours. You’ve answered my questions.

That being said, I would only add that there are many great parishes that use the oridnary form. Not everyone is out there to sabbotage it. I’m an old man and have been around a lot and have seen many great things in the form and in the parishes that use it.

I think this is my major concern. Obviously, good people have their faith fed by the Ordinary Form. If that wasn’t the case, we would never be having debates. If the Ordinary Form categorically produced apostasy, we wouldn’t have such a hard time arguing for our own perspective. I never called anyone who approved of the Ordinary Form a liberal.They aren’t liberals. They are Orthodox Catholics with a certain theological perspective.

But, there is an age difference, which is why I guess I’m so sensitive about it. It’s not the so-called “Novus Ordites” who are in apostasy. The whole millenial generation is what is in a state of apostasy. When people find out I’m a Catholic, they never encourage it. They want to know how I can support an organization that “oppresses” gays and women, supported the inquisition, etc. I’ve even had to justify myself for having a child.

The stringent ritual, the historical content, the beauty, the mystery, they nourish me in my heart. I don’t know if I could face the constant bombardment without it. The “clappy” stuff, the vernacular, the modern hymns, for some reason they don’t take me out of the world enough. The OF oftentimes seems so focused on appealing to the world. I don’t understand why. The world hates all of us. If powerful people had the option, they’d wipe out the Catholic faith. It’s no different than any other era.

I don’t presume to judge him, but it’s no wonder St. Rafael hold the opinions he does. As the world becomes more hostile, the Church toughens itself. If it doesn’t grow a backbone, I don’t know how it can persevere when so many people hate it, hate the Pope, and ultimately, hate Christ. Sounds so harsh in peoples’ ears, but when I was in high school (late 90’s), some kids were open “Satanists,” There were only a handful of them, and it was probably just adolescent stupidity, but it’s indicative of how far the mainstream culture has detached itself from the Church.

It’s like we lost the fight of trying to appeal to the 60’s. We have to try being as true to our tradition as we can, or our children’s generation will keep repeating the same errors. The Mormons can preserve their crazy religion and actually expand it. I don’t understand why our faith has to suffer so much.