Liturgical abuse!

[otjm]

As someone who attends the Latin Mass here in Houston, I can tell you that those who are self-appointed liturgical abuse police are those who are so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error everywhere else, such as in the mass and with others.

These ‘police’ won’t hesitate to approach you (a stranger or your kids) to announce that you are not in compliance in someway (skirt isn’t 2 inches below the knee, hands not in the proper position while returning from communion, etc.) and will pass off their opinion as canon law.
To sum, their attitiude towards perceived abuses in the mass and others is a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere…this opinion comes from my own experience and a priest who knows people who attend Tridentine Masses and those who don’t.

I am glad you said it and not me.

Coupled with this group of those too free with their opinions of compliance with laws are those who are so anal retentive as to be, honestly and truly, disabled. They make the law to be the ultimate, rather than the means of guiding to the ultimate.

Christ, less we forget, was a Jew and was the ultimate perfection of Jewishness. And He, with some frequency, broke Jewish laws which were not morally based so much as liturgically based. It was He who said that the Sabbath was for man, not man for the Sabbath; a comment that does not even register with the liturgical police.

I have no problem with liturgical laws, and no problem whatsoever with a priest who follows them. It ain’t that hard! On the other hand, having observed priests who intentionally or innocently do not follow exactly, while I have found it annoying, I have never found it so distracting that I have not been able to accomplish what I was there for in the first place: worship.

It is sad that there are those who cannot see or experience the beauty of the Mass in the OF when it is celebrated correctly and reverently. Is it the same as the EF? Of course not. But to act as if the EF was the absolute expression and the OF was questionably even legitimately a Mass is to so confuse the minor with the major that one wonders if they who protest so much even really understand what the Mass is about. Having grown up with the EF as the only form I knew, and having had every position available to an altar server, including the position of MC, and having attended Eastern liturgies in the Byzantine general format subsequently, it is my own personal experience that there is beauty in complexity and beauty in simplicity, and that spans the OF, EF and Eastern rites. All are legitimate forms of worship.

It takes an honest and unprejudiced person to admit that in the political world, there are elements of good, and not so good, in both the Democratic and Republican party. It takes the same - honest and unprejudiced - person to admit that there is good and perhaps not so good in both the EF and the OF. Growing up pre-Vatican 2, the vast majority of Masses were what was called a low Mass; no Gregorian chant, in fact, no music to speak of. 1 Mass a week in most places was a high Mass; and on a rare occasion - Easter and Christmas - a solemn high Mass. I sometimes wonder if some of the protesters look with some disdain on the low Mass and those who attend…

 

[Walking_Home]

As someone who attends the Latin Mass here in Houston, I can tell you that those who are self-appointed liturgical abuse police are those who are so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error everywhere else, such as in the mass and with others.

These ‘police’ won’t hesitate to approach you (a stranger or your kids) to announce that you are not in compliance in someway (skirt isn’t 2 inches below the knee, hands not in the proper position while returning from communion, etc.) and will pass off their opinion as canon law.
To sum, their attitiude towards perceived abuses in the mass and others is a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere…this opinion comes from my own experience and a priest who knows people who attend Tridentine Masses and those who don’t.

---

We are all sinners dsulpizio. Frankly it seems your attitude (and the priest) is worse–since you are making a charge based on what you do not know . The state of someones soul.

 

[otjm]

---

We are all sinners dsulpizio. Frankly it seems your attitude (and the priest) is worse–since you are making a charge based on what you do not know . The state of someones soul.

I am not sure that dsulpizio was trying so much to speak to the state of their souls as to their demeanor and what appears to be driving them. People who respond as do the subgroup he describes are not limited to Catholics or Traditionalists; they show up elsewhere. While I would not describe their behavior in terms of being sin driven, there is ample literature in legitimate psychological studies showing that some people who fall into a general category of anal retentive can end up in a sub category of those who are particularly driven to minute observation of “law abaiding” in others as that is an area that is most compelling within their lives.

I have had too much experience with people who are very rigid about observing minute details of behavioral “law” (“thus and so has to be done exactly this way”) not to be able to identify with his comments. There comes a point where concern for following, for example here, the rubrics, crosses over to an obsession with the minutia. That does not say that everyone who wants to follow the laws, or wants them observed, is obsessive. It helps to have a bit of common sense when discussing the issue.

Then, again, Voltaire pointed out that common sense is not all that common…

While I agree with you that we are all sinful, and I disagree with the poster in terms of using the word “sinful” to describe the behavior, his observation is accurate if not well described.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not sure that dsulpizio was trying so much to speak to the state of their souls as to their demeanor and what appears to be driving them. People who respond as do the subgroup he describes are not limited to Catholics or Traditionalists; they show up elsewhere. While I would not describe their behavior in terms of being sin driven, there is ample literature in legitimate psychological studies showing that some people who fall into a general category of anal retentive can end up in a sub category of those who are particularly driven to minute observation of “law abaiding” in others as that is an area that is most compelling within their lives.

I have had too much experience with people who are very rigid about observing minute details of behavioral “law” (“thus and so has to be done exactly this way”) not to be able to identify with his comments. There comes a point where concern for following, for example here, the rubrics, crosses over to an obsession with the minutia. That does not say that everyone who wants to follow the laws, or wants them observed, is obsessive. It helps to have a bit of common sense when discussing the issue.

Then, again, Voltaire pointed out that common sense is not all that common…

While I agree with you that we are all sinful, and I disagree with the poster in terms of using the word “sinful” to describe the behavior, his observation is accurate if not well described.

---

Nice try otjm.

 

[otjm]

---

Nice try otjm.

OK, so it would appear that you don’t agree. Care to elucidate? I am not trying to poke you in the eye, nor are my comments directed to anyone in this thread. I am making a general observation; if you do not agree with the observation, speak your piece.

 

[Walking_Home]

OK, so it would appear that you don’t agree. Care to elucidate? I am not trying to poke you in the eye, nor are my comments directed to anyone in this thread. I am making a general observation; if you do not agree with the observation, speak your piece.

Quote=otjm
I am not sure that dsulpizio was trying so much to speak to the state of their souls as to their demeanor and what appears to be driving them.…

While I agree with you that we are all sinful, and I disagree with the poster in terms of using the word “sinful” to describe the behavior, his observation is accurate if not well described.​

Well otjm — “what appears to be driving them”. I will let dsulpizio answer you—“those who are so inflicted with sin etc.”----"a reaction to** their own sinfulness**, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere. Now --unless this person has taken on God like attributes --the status of someones state of sinfulness (which leads them to try and diminish by focusing on error elsewhere) is something neither dsulpizio (and the priest) knows.

So really otjm – your agreement with dsulpizio is based on what you yourself have no access to — the state of a person’s sinfulness.

Originally Posted by dsulpizio View Post
As someone who attends the Latin Mass here in Houston, I can tell you that those who are self-appointed liturgical abuse police are** those who are so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error everywhere else, such as in the mass and with others.
**
These ‘police’ won’t hesitate to approach you (a stranger or your kids) to announce that you are not in compliance in someway (skirt isn’t 2 inches below the knee, hands not in the proper position while returning from communion, etc.) and will pass off their opinion as canon law.
To sum, their attitiude towards perceived abuses in the mass and others is a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere.…this opinion comes from my own experience and a priest who knows people who attend Tridentine Masses and those who don’t.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I am not sure that dsulpizio was trying so much to speak to the state of their souls as to their demeanor and what appears to be driving them. People who respond as do the subgroup he describes are not limited to Catholics or Traditionalists; they show up elsewhere. While I would not describe their behavior in terms of being sin driven, there is ample literature in legitimate psychological studies showing that some people who fall into a general category of anal retentive can end up in a sub category of those who are particularly driven to minute observation of “law abaiding” in others as that is an area that is most compelling within their lives.

I have had too much experience with people who are very rigid about observing minute details of behavioral “law” (“thus and so has to be done exactly this way”) not to be able to identify with his comments. There comes a point where concern for following, for example here, the rubrics, crosses over to an obsession with the minutia. That does not say that everyone who wants to follow the laws, or wants them observed, is obsessive. It helps to have a bit of common sense when discussing the issue.

Then, again, Voltaire pointed out that common sense is not all that common…

While I agree with you that we are all sinful, and I disagree with the poster in terms of using the word “sinful” to describe the behavior, his observation is accurate if not well described.

I wouldn’t presumt to comment on the “state of the souls” of the self-appointed “liturgical police,” but the question for me has always been: What do they get out of Mass? If someone is so focused on each gesture, mentally watching for and ticking off each rubric, how on earth are they participating in or gaining graces from the Eucharistic celebration?

 

[otjm]

Well otjm — “what appears to be driving them”. I will let dsulpizio answer you—“those who are so inflicted with sin etc.”----"a reaction to** their own sinfulness**, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere. Now --unless this person has taken on God like attributes --the status of someones state of sinfulness (which leads them to try and diminish by focusing on error elsewhere) is something neither dsulpizio (and the priest) knows.

So really otjm – your agreement with dsulpizio is based on what you yourself have no access to — the state of a person’s sinfulness.

I fail to see the logic of using one poster’s statement, which I expressed a certain amount of disagreement with, to give your objection to my statement.

As I said, if you read my post, one does not have to get into the issue of sinfulness at all in order to validate the observation that there are some Traditionalists who are obsessive over minutia in regards to worship, including minutia that the Church herself does not regulate - an example being how one holds one’s hands, or the length of a skirt (his examples, not mine).

And if you have not read my post, or you did so in haste, please go back and read it. You may be of the opinion that there is no such thing as a person who is anal retentive to a degree that has become obsessive. You would be in disagreement with standard accepted psychological and psychiatric observations and practice if you held such a position. Perhaps you do; perhaps you don’t, but until you make your position clear rather than quoting someone I have already said I disagree with in part, and have further stated that one can come to the same observations without reference to moralstatus/standing/attitude/spiritual position, it is difficult to carry on any conversation.

It may well be you don’t like my observation; but I didn’t ask you to like it. If you want to disagree with it, that is perfectly ok. But quoting someone else is not a logical method nor is it conducive to further conversation.

You might also note, as I suspect this has you a bit steamed up, that neither the other poster nor I have said that most people, many people, or even a lot of people who are Tradtitionalists are this way. Both the other poster and I were simply pointing out a fact that there are, within Traditionalist circles, those who are obsessive to an unhealthy degree. The other poster ascribes it to moral issues. I don’t.

You are welcome to disagree. But at least don’t misquote me or try to put others; words in my mouth. I am capable of speaking my own piece.

I don’t ascribe their behavior to a state of another’s sinfulness; re-read what I wrote. a person can struggle with issues without there having to be a moral component. Obsessive - Compulsive behavior is not something I would ascribe to an issue of sinfulness; it is a behavioral issue. Not all behavioral issues have a moral quality to them. OCD is a prime example.

 

[Walking_Home]

I fail to see the logic of using one poster’s statement, which I expressed a certain amount of disagreement with, to give your objection to my statement.

As I said, if you read my post, one does not have to get into the issue of sinfulness at all in order to validate the observation that there are some Traditionalists who are obsessive over minutia in regards to worship, including minutia that the Church herself does not regulate - an example being how one holds one’s hands, or the length of a skirt (his examples, not mine).

And if you have not read my post, or you did so in haste, please go back and read it. You may be of the opinion that there is no such thing as a person who is anal retentive to a degree that has become obsessive. You would be in disagreement with standard accepted psychological and psychiatric observations and practice if you held such a position. Perhaps you do; perhaps you don’t, but until you make your position clear rather than quoting someone I have already said I disagree with in part, and have further stated that one can come to the same observations without reference to moralstatus/standing/attitude/spiritual position, it is difficult to carry on any conversation.

It may well be you don’t like my observation; but I didn’t ask you to like it. If you want to disagree with it, that is perfectly ok. But quoting someone else is not a logical method nor is it conducive to further conversation.

You might also note, as I suspect this has you a bit steamed up, that neither the other poster nor I have said that most people, many people, or even a lot of people who are Tradtitionalists are this way. Both the other poster and I were simply pointing out a fact that there are, within Traditionalist circles, those who are obsessive to an unhealthy degree. The other poster ascribes it to moral issues. I don’t.

You are welcome to disagree. But at least don’t misquote me or try to put others; words in my mouth. I am capable of speaking my own piece.

I don’t ascribe their behavior to a state of another’s sinfulness; re-read what I wrote. a person can struggle with issues without there having to be a moral component. Obsessive - Compulsive behavior is not something I would ascribe to an issue of sinfulness; it is a behavioral issue. Not all behavioral issues have a moral quality to them. OCD is a prime example.

---

Well otjm – good try again. I leave you to your failings.

 

[maurin]

I wouldn’t presumt to comment on the “state of the souls” of the self-appointed “liturgical police,” but the question for me has always been: What do they get out of Mass? If someone is so focused on each gesture, mentally watching for and ticking off each rubric, how on earth are they participating in or gaining graces from the Eucharistic celebration?

Although you do have a point, Mattapoisett, isn’t it sad that there are priests and others who care so little for the rubrics Holy Mother Church so painstakingly developed over the course of 40 years in the case of the NO Mass and 20 or so centuries in the case of the Holy Mass?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Although you do have a point, Mattapoisett, isn’t it sad that there are priests and others who care so little for the rubrics Holy Mother Church so painstakingly developed over the course of 40 years in the case of the NO Mass and 20 or so centuries in the case of the Holy Mass?

Are you saying that the Pauline Mass is NOT “the Holy Mass?”

 

[otjm]

---

Well otjm – good try again. I leave you to your failings.

In other words, you are incapable of engaging in discourse. No problem. It is you who are stooping to personal attacks; I will leave that for what it shows.

 

[otjm]

Although you do have a point, Mattapoisett, isn’t it sad that there are priests and others who care so little for the rubrics Holy Mother Church so painstakingly developed over the course of 40 years in the case of the NO Mass and 20 or so centuries in the case of the Holy Mass?

Having known those priests, I would agree that it is sad that some of them have taken the approach they have; it si also sad that so many priests left the priesthood (primarily to get married). Waht is joyful is the group of youg priests, often characterized as JP2 priests, who have a sense of joy and reverence saying the OF.

And what is interesting also is the fact that so many of the priests who were loose with the rubrics and seemed to have lost a sense of reverence were those ordained before and during the time of Vatican 2. It was almost like the child who had been raised in a very strict household, going away to school and going hog-wild.

 

[Walking_Home]

In other words, you are incapable of engaging in discourse. No problem. It is you who are stooping to personal attacks; I will leave that for what it shows.

---

otjm, otjm–why waste time in discourse with you --when you fail to see. Now don’t go about making up accusations of putting someone else’s words in your mouth—look up in your prior post --your words --“I fail to see”.

And yes – will leave it for what it shows.

 

[otjm]

---

otjm, otjm–why waste time in discourse with you --when you fail to see. Now don’t go about making up accusations of putting someone else’s words in your mouth—look up in your prior post --your words --“I fail to see”.

And yes – will leave it for what it shows.

I was polite when I said “I fail to see the logic”. You quoted another post to answer me. You lack logic, as the other post was trying to make the point by referring to the perceived sinfulness, and I said that one did not need to do so. You and I both agree that neither of us nor the other poster can determine the sinfulness of lack thereof in another individual. I

If you don’t like my observations, then meet them head on. Don’t do something as intellectually lacking as trying to drag a red a red herring through the conversation. You are brighter than that and we both know it.

I don’t think this is about wasting your time. Either you can’t read what I wrote - at which point I will withdraw may statement about being brighter - or you choose not to. Choosing not to is perfectly fine. Playing cute is for teenagers.

 

[Walking_Home]

I was polite when I said “I fail to see the logic”. You quoted another post to answer me. You lack logic, as the other post was trying to make the point by referring to the perceived sinfulness, and I said that one did not need to do so. You and I both agree that neither of us nor the other poster can determine the sinfulness of lack thereof in another individual. I

If you don’t like my observations, then meet them head on. Don’t do something as intellectually lacking as trying to drag a red a red herring through the conversation. You are brighter than that and we both know it.

I don’t think this is about wasting your time. Either you can’t read what I wrote - at which point I will withdraw may statement about being brighter - or you choose not to. Choosing not to is perfectly fine. Playing cute is for teenagers.

---

otjm, otjm—all I can recommend for you is to go back to post #241 where I made my initial response to dsulpizio and from there on to where you responded to me --so on and so forth. Really pay attention to our discourse. As to red herrings and playing cute --not quite my style.

 

[maurin]

Having known those priests, I would agree that it is sad that some of them have taken the approach they have; it si also sad that so many priests left the priesthood (primarily to get married). Waht is joyful is the group of youg priests, often characterized as JP2 priests, who have a sense of joy and reverence saying the OF.

And what is interesting also is the fact that so many of the priests who were loose with the rubrics and seemed to have lost a sense of reverence were those ordained before and during the time of Vatican 2. It was almost like the child who had been raised in a very strict household, going away to school and going hog-wild.

the JP2 priests of whom you speak are the next generation of the hippie generation, otjm. Don’t be fooled by them–they are the neo-cons, the new conservatives–disguising the novelties in chant and in vestments, joyfully and reverently ignoring 2 millenia of their patrimony.

 

[otjm]

---

otjm, otjm—all I can recommend for you is to go back to post #241 where I made my initial response to dsulpizio and from there on to where you responded to me --so on and so forth. Really pay attention to our discourse. As to red herrings and playing cute --not quite my style.

I read 241, and I say you don’t read my posts. One does not have to read the status of someone else’s soul to see behavior that is over the top. And one does not have to determine the status of another’s soul to see that individual may be, for example, OCD. That is not a soul issue; it is a psychological issue.

I have read your posts. I have invited you to discuss the issue of what may drive some people to an activity and attitude which appears at least in part to be OCD, and the best response you can come up with is “you can’t look at their souls and judge them”?

I already said I agreed with you on that point, but you keep going back to it.

OK, maybe you just don’t want to deal with the issue. Fine and dandy. But you could simply say you don’t want to talk about it, instead of repeating an answer that has already been defined out of the conversation.

Or maybe you don’t agree that psychology has any use or validity. You could say that too, as the Church does not view psychology as looking at someone’s soul and judging them.

If you don’t want to play in the sandbox, that is fine; but saying that you won’t play in this sandbox because someone else has a toy in their sandbox you don’t like makes no sense.

I read the other poster’s post; I read your response to his post (which I have pointed out, I agree with); I ahve posited a different issue, and you keep returning to the one you and I agree about; that is not responding to my comments. So yes, considering that you and I agree that one has neither the right nor in fact the ability to look into another’s soul, dragging that issue out to reply to me is a red herring.

 

[Layman]

A couple of other good sites:

Fr. Z
Rorate Caeli

 

[otjm]

the JP2 priests of whom you speak are the next generation of the hippie generation, otjm. Don’t be fooled by them–they are the neo-cons, the new conservatives–disguising the novelties in chant and in vestments, joyfully and reverently ignoring 2 millenia of their patrimony.

Ignoring 2 millenia. Hogwash. They are reverent. Some like the EF, some don’t. I do not disagree that there are differences between the EF and the OF, and that the EF emphasizes God-transcendent, and the OF emphasizes God-imminent. Nor do I disagree that the translation we have for the vernacular is inaccurate.

The essence of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both Masses have these essential parts; so to say that the last two millenia are ignored is to attempt to say that there are so many dissimilarities that if one were to have attended only one, and on a day went to the other, one could not recognize it for what it was. That is pure bs - and I have heard it said. Hyperbole to the extreme.

As a matter of fact, 2 millenia are not ignored; those who wish to follow what the Church practiced in all sacraments prior to Vatican 2 are ignoring that practices change over time, and that the revue of sacramental practices and emphasis was in order.

The last three popes we have had have said the OF primarily and almost exclusively in public Masses, as do the vast majority of Cardinals, bishops and priests… That the JP2 priests do the same should hardly be a surprise.

Do I think the OF needs some work? Yes; but I disagree that it needs to simply be made to look life the EF.

It may well be that you will not be happy until all is brought back to 1955 (to pick a number). I will not dispute your preferances, and I will not dispute some of your reasoning. Some. Not all. I wish there were a whole lot of things that could go back to 1955 (and yes, I do remember some of that time), but it isn’t going to happen, and I have decided that I will not let that affect my attitudes - towards society, towards the Church, or towards the Mass.

I have to leave town tonight, so I will not be able to do my hour of adoration. Perhaps you could do it for me, if you are not busy.

Oh, and by the way, your reference to them as the next generation of the hippy generation was worth a smile. Not too acurate, but a smile.