B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I’ve seen signboards at Latin rite churches that use the term “Divine Liturgy” exclusively.
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
The generic inclusive term is “Divine Worship Service”, covering the Quorbono, Qurbana, Divine Liturgy, and Mass all equally. It is the term used in both the CCEO and the CIC (canon law).
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
O’Malley:
I use the term because Dr. Scott Hahn does in his books, and because Fr. Fessio & other liturgists do. and I do so in order order to remind us of probably the greatest Mystery (I’m deliberately using the word in the way Father Bishop Basil would) of the Mass - the replication of the Heavenly Liturgy here on earth, and the Anamnesis of our Lord’s Final Seder (and Institution of the Eucharist), His Agony in the Garden and His Death on the Cross. This Mystery not only UNITES us with the Heavenly Liturgy described in the Book of Revelation, but it also UNITES us with every single Divine Liturgy celebrated throughout the whole world since the Lord instituted the Eucharist.
Mass comes from a “Code Word” Early Catholics used to describe the Divine Liturgy (Pretty much like the fish symbol, the Cross & parts of the Creed were used to identify “Brothers in Christ”).
I hope this makes sense.
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
L
Layman
Guest
Dear Basil,
I was surprised and touched that you went to the trouble of contacting priests about my concerns. So thanks for doing that.
I don’t think it’s the Church that’s the problem. Or the validity of the N.O. Mass. Or even the novelties by themselves, individually, 'though I really don’t like them, and have argued elsewhere, why.
It’s:
I’ve read here that Pius V(?) forbade such experimentation. If so, I can see why that should be. Unless you’re a living saint, with psychic sight, you can’t easily divine the will of Heaven. So it’s safer to say: “This is how the Mass is to be done, don’t deviate from it. We don’t need any more Luthers, thank you.”
Plus, a Pope, Bishop and Priest has to worry about people’s salvation. And the reaction of Christ. If you truly believe that the King of The Universe is going to present Himself for sacrifice on an altar in your church, you should attend with all the pomp, humility, reverence and piety you can muster.
Adding mundane elements, stripping churches, getting the laity into the sanctuary and them giving out communion is not the way to go. It’s contradictory behaviour.
While the Church will correct itself, bishops can make mistakes; the oft-mentioned Arian heresy is proof of that.
It seems the attitude amongst liberal clergy is: You must obey the Church (i.e. us) and accept the novelties, while we disobey what Paul VI wanted and what Pope Benedict now wants.
You can’t have it both ways: Wanting the same reverence, as accorded to the TLM, for a Mass where the participants are increasingly behaving as if it’s more of a social occasion, like a school recital.
It struck me that our clergy ought to try:
I think if you’re in a right relation with Christ, the rest, with a little effort on your part, takes care of itself.
I was surprised and touched that you went to the trouble of contacting priests about my concerns. So thanks for doing that.
I don’t think it’s the Church that’s the problem. Or the validity of the N.O. Mass. Or even the novelties by themselves, individually, 'though I really don’t like them, and have argued elsewhere, why.
It’s:
- How the novelties added to the N.O. are, collectively, taking the focus of the congregation and priest away from Christ and towards the participants;
- How bad catechesis is helping this trend;
- How liberal Bishops, Bishop’s conferences, clergy, religious and academics are playing down sin, death, eternity, judgement and damnation; while simultaneously promoting experimentation in the Mass;
- These now leading to an easy-going congregation, who as a result won’t produce vocations, who don’t care so much, who miss the occasional Mass, so the church collection goes down, over time, and then your church or parish in time can close.
I’ve read here that Pius V(?) forbade such experimentation. If so, I can see why that should be. Unless you’re a living saint, with psychic sight, you can’t easily divine the will of Heaven. So it’s safer to say: “This is how the Mass is to be done, don’t deviate from it. We don’t need any more Luthers, thank you.”
Plus, a Pope, Bishop and Priest has to worry about people’s salvation. And the reaction of Christ. If you truly believe that the King of The Universe is going to present Himself for sacrifice on an altar in your church, you should attend with all the pomp, humility, reverence and piety you can muster.
Adding mundane elements, stripping churches, getting the laity into the sanctuary and them giving out communion is not the way to go. It’s contradictory behaviour.
While the Church will correct itself, bishops can make mistakes; the oft-mentioned Arian heresy is proof of that.
It seems the attitude amongst liberal clergy is: You must obey the Church (i.e. us) and accept the novelties, while we disobey what Paul VI wanted and what Pope Benedict now wants.
You can’t have it both ways: Wanting the same reverence, as accorded to the TLM, for a Mass where the participants are increasingly behaving as if it’s more of a social occasion, like a school recital.
It struck me that our clergy ought to try:
- Preaching the Gospel (including the non-politically correct bits);
- Teaching the basics of our religion: what gets you into Heaven, or Hell;
- Healing the sick and exorcising demons (it’s in the job description);
- Having feasts of the traditional days;
- Offering a regular TLM on a Sunday morning …
I think if you’re in a right relation with Christ, the rest, with a little effort on your part, takes care of itself.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Layman:
I looked up a lot of the links on Female Deacons in the Orthodox Churches, and they’re reviving the office pretty much along the lines of what it was in the Early Church. Please read these posts and the attached Links:
Women in the Priesthood #245
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5258869&postcount=245
Women in the Priesthood #246
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5258975&postcount=246
If you read the Post #246 & the 2nd link, you’ll see that Deaconesses aren’t being used in the same way male Deacons are - They’re NOT up at the altar during the consecration… So, there’s NO chance of mistaking her for a priest, and there’s no chance for confusion among reasonable people (that is, people who aren’t pushing for “Women Priests” every day of their lives)…
Their parents, who all thought their kids would get an easy ride, howled and screamed “Bloody Murder”.
I can tell you at least part of the reason for the Bad/NO Catechesis lies with the laity - we simply didn’t demand better and support the efforts of those who were trying to do better…
And, NOW, we’re reaping the fruits of all of this:
Bad Teaching
Bad Preaching
Bad Liturgy
Excluding good, orthodox men from the seminaries because they’re GOOD, ORTHODOX MEN (See GOODBYE, GOOD MEN: How Liberals brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, by Michael Rose)
And, then we have the “Cycle” you illustrated… Also known as “How to kill a Diocese” - We had a parish (St. Mary by the Sea in Orange County) which had clearly outgrown its building & parking. The Bishop of Orange decided he didn’t like the pastor or the parishioners - they were all too conservative for his tastes. so, He went after them. Within 2 years after he had put in the new pastor, got rid of the TLM and the Altar Rail, the parish had shrunk to less than 1/2 its former size.
I’m not going to replay the sordid details here, but I can give you links to everything if you feel the need to know.
Situation in my Archdiocese:
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=96f0bd99-22f1-4f5b-8782-e0073a33a4bf
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
I looked up a lot of the links on Female Deacons in the Orthodox Churches, and they’re reviving the office pretty much along the lines of what it was in the Early Church. Please read these posts and the attached Links:
Women in the Priesthood #245
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5258869&postcount=245
Women in the Priesthood #246
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5258975&postcount=246
If you read the Post #246 & the 2nd link, you’ll see that Deaconesses aren’t being used in the same way male Deacons are - They’re NOT up at the altar during the consecration… So, there’s NO chance of mistaking her for a priest, and there’s no chance for confusion among reasonable people (that is, people who aren’t pushing for “Women Priests” every day of their lives)…
… I know - I live in the Los Angeles Archdiocese. In the early 1980’s, I taught a CCD class (Confirmation) at a local Roman Catholic parish (NO ONE else was available). The books were DOCTRINE FREE ZONES - They literally had NO DOCTRINE. So, I dug up a bunch of old Baltimore Catechisms and some (before revision) New American Bibles. I couldn’t make up for 6+ years of NO CATECHESIS, and I couldn’t get give them tons of homework. so, I gave my students 2 questions from the Baltimore Catechism & one scripture to remember each week, and I had them try to write a 3 minute discussion/monologue saying what Confirmation was & why they wanted to be Confirmed.
Their parents, who all thought their kids would get an easy ride, howled and screamed “Bloody Murder”.
I can tell you at least part of the reason for the Bad/NO Catechesis lies with the laity - we simply didn’t demand better and support the efforts of those who were trying to do better…
And, NOW, we’re reaping the fruits of all of this:
Bad Teaching
Bad Preaching
Bad Liturgy
Excluding good, orthodox men from the seminaries because they’re GOOD, ORTHODOX MEN (See GOODBYE, GOOD MEN: How Liberals brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, by Michael Rose)
And, then we have the “Cycle” you illustrated… Also known as “How to kill a Diocese” - We had a parish (St. Mary by the Sea in Orange County) which had clearly outgrown its building & parking. The Bishop of Orange decided he didn’t like the pastor or the parishioners - they were all too conservative for his tastes. so, He went after them. Within 2 years after he had put in the new pastor, got rid of the TLM and the Altar Rail, the parish had shrunk to less than 1/2 its former size.
I’m not going to replay the sordid details here, but I can give you links to everything if you feel the need to know.
Situation in my Archdiocese:
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=96f0bd99-22f1-4f5b-8782-e0073a33a4bf
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
C
Cat
Guest
I don’t agree with much of this and I think it is judgmental and speculative.
I attend an OF Mass, and we have vocations. Our diocese actually has a surplus of vocations, and most of them are coming out of the OF Mass parishes, and many of those parishes are pretty stripped-down and “modern” looking, and most of the music is Haugen and Haas.
We have a TLM in our city, and I can’t say that I notice any difference in reverence in their people. Yes, they are good Catholics, but so are many of the parishioners at our modern, stripped-down parish. We have a 24-hour Adoration Chapel and it is often quite full of the people from our parish. And in a simple “goodness” contest, I would bet my money on the dear parishioners from the Italian parish (OF Mass) that I play for over the TLMers anytime! Those Italian-Americans are saints on earth!
I think that it’s just speculative to say that the OF Mass is people-centered. As a Protestant visitor to Mass, I never thought it seemed people-centered or priest-centered. The focus is upon Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament–that was obvious even to a dumbo like me who knew nothing about Catholic Mass. I think you say that because you personally don’t like it, but that’s not a legitimate reason to condemn it as people-centered.
I think a lot of OF people would say that you are making very negative assumptions about them and their friends that simply aren’t true. Yes, I’m sure there are a lot of people sitting in the OF Mass who aren’t on task. But you know, I think that if all the Masses were TLM, there would be a lot of people who aren’t on task. I think it’s easier in the TLM to act like you’re reverent.
I don’t see how you can objectively meausure “reverence,” since it is a heart-attitude, not a posture or a gesture (or lack of gesture). A person who is kneeling throughout the Mass and receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and doing all the “reverent” things could be seething with inner hatred and murderous thoughts against someone, while a person who appears to be bored and unconnected at the OF Mass, or singing and clapping a simple hymn, might be filled with sublime thoughts of awe about Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, and overwhelmed with humility in His Presence. You really can’t judge people.
L
Layman
Guest
Dear Cat,
I don’t want to scandalise you. A valid Catholic Mass, with whatever additions, is much better spiritually than any Protestant confection. But this is a traditional sub-forum, and I am arguing for Tradition and against ‘novelty-for-intellectual-reasons’. I like to think I’m looking at the overall trend, and trying to explain it. Individual experiences, of course, vary.
If one thinks about it, why change the rite at all? I don’t see what good the innovations/archeologisms have added to it. Why CITH, the priest facing the congregation and lay readers: ‘Audience participation?’ Getting the ‘pew potatoes’ more involved?
We all know what the priest is saying now. It’s a shock when you then read a Latin Mass missal with a translation, and realise the richness and familiarity of what was dropped.
If one lives in a big city, one can get to the kind of Mass you like; standard N.O., charismatic, TLM. If one is in a rich parish with a sizable Catholic population, one may not notice anything amiss; go to Mass, confession, the major feasts, all is well.
Even if your parish is merged, getting to a different church won’t be a big hike. However, if you’re a bit out of the way, and the congregation is declining, and the bishop has an eye for figures …
I don’t like what I’m seeing in the churches I’ve visited. Or hearing: “We need more vocations”, “There’re only two seminarians in the whole diocese”, “Our collection is regularly short of the funds needed to keep the church going”. You can get reasonable crowds for Mass, long lines for Communion, but only one or two souls for confession.
In two churches I go to, the Stations of the Cross have not been intact for years. I understand, from memory, that a Station is the cross (the picture is not essential). Are people doing the Stations now not getting the indulgence because the Stations are not intact? Things like that bug me. I’ve mentioned it to the clergy-in-charge, but so far, nix.
I asked local clergy and friars about The Brown Scapular. They didn’t do it. Had to find a Carmelite to do it.
I’m also getting the impression that if a priest wants to try the old Mass, Motu Proprio or no, he’d better have regard to the leanings of his bishop.
I think Pope Benedict, brave priests and a willing laity will turn this around. Even taking religion out of it entirely, and borrowing from engineering, if the new engine modification doesn’t work, why not try going back to the one that did?
*(Note: I’m aware that cause and effect may not operate here: that post-Vat. II modifications may not be directly responsible for the decline in Mass attendance and vocations. It could just be the decadence of our times alone, for example.
However, the Church can’t stop all the decadence in society by decree. It can, however, go back to what worked previously, and give that a go. See what happens.)*
I don’t want to scandalise you. A valid Catholic Mass, with whatever additions, is much better spiritually than any Protestant confection. But this is a traditional sub-forum, and I am arguing for Tradition and against ‘novelty-for-intellectual-reasons’. I like to think I’m looking at the overall trend, and trying to explain it. Individual experiences, of course, vary.
If one thinks about it, why change the rite at all? I don’t see what good the innovations/archeologisms have added to it. Why CITH, the priest facing the congregation and lay readers: ‘Audience participation?’ Getting the ‘pew potatoes’ more involved?
We all know what the priest is saying now. It’s a shock when you then read a Latin Mass missal with a translation, and realise the richness and familiarity of what was dropped.
If one lives in a big city, one can get to the kind of Mass you like; standard N.O., charismatic, TLM. If one is in a rich parish with a sizable Catholic population, one may not notice anything amiss; go to Mass, confession, the major feasts, all is well.
Even if your parish is merged, getting to a different church won’t be a big hike. However, if you’re a bit out of the way, and the congregation is declining, and the bishop has an eye for figures …
I don’t like what I’m seeing in the churches I’ve visited. Or hearing: “We need more vocations”, “There’re only two seminarians in the whole diocese”, “Our collection is regularly short of the funds needed to keep the church going”. You can get reasonable crowds for Mass, long lines for Communion, but only one or two souls for confession.
In two churches I go to, the Stations of the Cross have not been intact for years. I understand, from memory, that a Station is the cross (the picture is not essential). Are people doing the Stations now not getting the indulgence because the Stations are not intact? Things like that bug me. I’ve mentioned it to the clergy-in-charge, but so far, nix.
I asked local clergy and friars about The Brown Scapular. They didn’t do it. Had to find a Carmelite to do it.
I’m also getting the impression that if a priest wants to try the old Mass, Motu Proprio or no, he’d better have regard to the leanings of his bishop.
I think Pope Benedict, brave priests and a willing laity will turn this around. Even taking religion out of it entirely, and borrowing from engineering, if the new engine modification doesn’t work, why not try going back to the one that did?
*(Note: I’m aware that cause and effect may not operate here: that post-Vat. II modifications may not be directly responsible for the decline in Mass attendance and vocations. It could just be the decadence of our times alone, for example.
However, the Church can’t stop all the decadence in society by decree. It can, however, go back to what worked previously, and give that a go. See what happens.)*
C
Cat
Guest
Dear Layman,
I feel for you, living in a diocese where the situation is so sorrowful.
My point it, I don’t think a return to Traditionalism is the answer to more vocations, more piety, and more reverence.
OUR diocese is very modern, with many new church buildings. Of course, the OF Mass predominates, with all the practices (Communion in the hand, rock music, etc.) that you and others dislike, although we’ve had TLM since the 1980s, and more TLMs are being offered in other cities every week.
And in spite of our modernity, our diocese thrives. We have the surplus of vocations. We have a wonderful sense of optimism. Our pro-life activities are vibrant. Protestants are converting. Devotion to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and to Mary and the Saints is prevalent. Our priests are good preachers, who regularly denounce abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual marriage, co-habiting, divorce, etc. from the ambo. Many of our priests write books or make appearances on radio or TV shows.
And our young people are involved and active in the parishes, and many are responding to the call for vocations or lay involvement with Catholic careers.
You see, I don’t think it has anything to do with the number of TLMs and Communion on the Tongue and Latin and chant. I think it has to do with holy men, our clergy, who are committed to Jesus Christ and consecrated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and who are obedient and submissive to the Holy Mother Church.
I do think that TLMs should be offered in more locations so that every Catholic who wishes to serve at this Mass can do so without driving long distances and wasting precious time and gasoline, and I think that is happening as more priests are trained.
Cat
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Okay, this is an old(er) post, but I thought it makes a good jumping off point for me to dive into the discussion.
I think that there are definitely people who fall into each camp: (1) everything not expressly forbidden is permitted & (2) everything not expressly permitted is forbidden.
I think I would place myself somewhere in the middle (as I’m sure you would, too, Cat). Obviously, simply because the GIRM doesn’t regulate bathroom breaks doesn’t mean that all are doomed to hold it for the duration of Mass (imagine the mad dash to the restrooms following the Easter Vigil!
). But, on the other hand, simply because the GIRM fails to specifically prohibit it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to hand out balloon animals as people receive Communion. What we really need is a good dose of common sense (AKA, the virtue of prudence).I admit, I used to be way too focused on whatever mis-steps might take place during Mass to the point that I really was distracted from why we’re all there in the first place. I’ve since learned to curb this tendency to overlook the small things. I do still get peeved by major abuses, and even some smaller things, but I’m usually better about keeping my focus.
I do understand why people get so worked up on both sides of the issue. The liturgy is supremely important. It is the source and summit of our faith. I certainly don’t want to see it abused. But we do want to keep things in perspective. If the priest is attempting to consecrate pizza and beer, then we are right to get upset, very upset. If the priest starts Mass with “Good Morning” before starting with the Sign of the Cross, well, there are far worse things.
The more I think about it, the more I really think that we could all use a strengthening of the virtue of prudence. I need to remember to add that to my daily intentions (at least for my own sake!
)
J
JustaServant
Guest
Okay, I can’t help but think of Father Ted.
Good post and blog BTW, I’ll read more later tonight.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
How the novelties added to the N.O. are, collectively, taking the focus of the congregation and priest away from Christ and towards the participants;
**If they don’t affect the efficacy of the Mass separately, they don’t do it severally, either.
And in response to something you said earlier, how can something be old (“archaeologism”) and new (“innovation”) at the same time?**
**If they don’t affect the efficacy of the Mass separately, they don’t do it severally, either.
And in response to something you said earlier, how can something be old (“archaeologism”) and new (“innovation”) at the same time?**
C
Cat
Guest
What a lovely post, full of sweet reasonableness and charity. Thank you.Okay, this is an old(er) post, but I thought it makes a good jumping off point for me to dive into the discussion.
I think that there are definitely people who fall into each camp: (1) everything not expressly forbidden is permitted & (2) everything not expressly permitted is forbidden.
I think I would place myself somewhere in the middle (as I’m sure you would, too, Cat). Obviously, simply because the GIRM doesn’t regulate bathroom breaks doesn’t mean that all are doomed to hold it for the duration of Mass (imagine the mad dash to the restrooms following the Easter Vigil!
I admit, I used to be way too focused on whatever mis-steps might take place during Mass to the point that I really was distracted from why we’re all there in the first place. I’ve since learned to curb this tendency to overlook the small things. I do still get peeved by major abuses, and even some smaller things, but I’m usually better about keeping my focus.
I do understand why people get so worked up on both sides of the issue. The liturgy is supremely important. It is the source and summit of our faith. I certainly don’t want to see it abused. But we do want to keep things in perspective. If the priest is attempting to consecrate pizza and beer, then we are right to get upset, very upset. If the priest starts Mass with “Good Morning” before starting with the Sign of the Cross, well, there are far worse things.
The more I think about it, the more I really think that we could all use a strengthening of the virtue of prudence. I need to remember to add that to my daily intentions (at least for my own sake!
O
otjm
Guest
Part of the problem of having a conversation about anything is the lack of agreement on the definition of terms. Coupled with that is the very basic fact that even with an agreement on definitions, much of what is discussed is done so from the perspective of personal experience. And given the fact that there are something like about 19,000 parishes, spread through the whole of the US, some residing in a diocese which has good, solid leadership (Chaput and Vlazney come to mind), and others in a diocese that has had a past or a present leadership that for whatever reason cannot get the liturgy to follow the GIRM (and many other issues, most of which are not specifically related to the Mass), too many of the conversations are like ships passing in the night.
And then we come to the old issue of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, a goodly bit of which is infected by the personal experience, and another part of which is due to the inability to think critically.
A goodly number of people are upset. Some are upset no matter how well the diocese, and/or the parish follows the GIRM. Others are upset, and rightly so, because the pastor is one of the many who were infected with enthusiasm and almost no guidance after Vatican 2 (but ordained before it), or ordained subsequently and are the product of seminaries who collectively and individually went off on their own; again, due to professors who were pre-Vatican 2 ordained, but lacked guidance (and any scintilla of common sense).
The problem too often is that those who are upset want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because they cannot source cause, but only see effect. Coupled with that is a “rose colored glasses” view of history that has little to do with cause and effect, and often has nothing to do with the reality of that history.
A minor example: in 1966 lay theologians were in a novelty minority; there just were not very many. Now they are a dime a dozen. And too many of then are not worth that much…
The low number of vocations in many dioceses have a multitude of causes, and blaming it on the OF borders on the ludicrous. The whole of society is so radically changed from the 1950’s that to ignore the changes that have occured borders on the criminal, for lack of a better term. Parents who had 4, 5, 6 or more children (all other things being equal, and they never are) had far less an issue with a son going into the priesthood than a family that has their now 2.1 children(and if we remove the Hispanic community, it is less than 2.1 children). Kids take their parents’ lead in large part. Parents don’t encourage children in a vocation to priesthood and many actively discourage it; it is simply a variation of NIMBY.
L
Layman
Guest
But was it not the case that **there was a mass exodus of clergy and relgious from their vocations post Vat. II.? **That’s what I’ve read, here and elsewhere.
One minute you’re saying a Mass you’ve dedicated your life to and sacrificed a great deal for the privilege; the next, it’s binned.
My concern is that:
**- CITH, standing => We have become more Holy, or the Host is now less sacred. Or our forebears were wrong in how they treated it.
- Priest versus populum => He’s the star of the show. Move the tabernacle so he doesn’t feel self-conscious with his back to it. Then it’s just him up there.
- Altar girls, unvested lay people in the sanctuary => it’s no longer a sacred precinct, anyone can now go in there.
Add in:
Bad catechesis => people not going to confession, thus receiving communion in a state of mortal sin. Generally taking an easy-going attitude to their religion, as they’ve been taught. Christ’s mercy emphasised, His Judgement played down: “We don’t know if anybody is in Hell”.
Next?:
Female deacons => Prelude to consecration of women by rebel bishops who see no wrong in this. They’ll be in the sanctuary, so it’ll be an easy transition.
Married priests => There aren’t enough priests full stop, and we used to have them.
Liturgical dancing => Layman’s head explodes.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
- Most of those leaving in the “mass exodus after Vatican 2” were trained and formed in the spirituality associated with the Pian Missal. Obviously, they were shaky in their resolve, or possibly had no vocation to start with.
- CITH, standing => We have become more Holy, or the Host is now less sacred. Or our forebears were wrong in how they treated it.
- Priest versus populum => He’s the star of the show. Move the tabernacle so he doesn’t feel self-conscious with his back to it. Then it’s just him up there.
I would also say that were I building a church from scratch, as beautiful as Eucharistic doves are, I would probably reserve in an aumbry behind the proskomedia for security of the Holy Gifts.
- Altar girls, unvested lay people in the sanctuary => it’s no longer a sacred precinct, anyone can now go in there.
If someone merely wants to pray closer to the tabernacle, such a person HAS no immediate and direct business there.
Female altar servers have been the rule in women’s monsteries in the East.
5.**All leading to a casual attitude in the congregation and maybe the priest…
Add in:
Bad catechesis =>… “We don’t know if anybody is in Hell”.**
I don’t think these led to a casual attitude in the congregation. I’d say rather that casual attitudes are more the result of a relaxation of etiquette generally in society, which probably affected behavior in church. This has changed considerably even in Protestant churches.
Bad catechesis is an issue in itself, I will grant you.
But, no, we don’t know IF anybody is in Hell yet. (Note the word “yet”.) All we know for sure is that the Antichrist and False Prophet have the dubious distinction of being cast there alive.
Beyond this, God has not revealed.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
My parish no longer says the confessional prayer: i confess to Almighty God and to you…
is this a Liturgical abuse? i also miss the bells during the Consecration.
the music is getting more and more modern tune. please pray for our priests.
i heard in EWTN that this year is going to be the year for the priesthood. St Vianney is going to be the Patron Saint for all priests.
i come to the conclusion that since confession has been reduced to almost none, the people are more likely to leave the Church. just by hearing the story of St Vianney. it is a beautiful story.
is this a Liturgical abuse? i also miss the bells during the Consecration.
the music is getting more and more modern tune. please pray for our priests.
i heard in EWTN that this year is going to be the year for the priesthood. St Vianney is going to be the Patron Saint for all priests.
i come to the conclusion that since confession has been reduced to almost none, the people are more likely to leave the Church. just by hearing the story of St Vianney. it is a beautiful story.
L
Layman
Guest
That’s quite a lot of people to denigrate. Perhaps they didn’t view the Mass, and their religion, as something that could be treated like an engineering experiment?
It’s interesting that all of the things I mentioned appear now, commonly, in the Roman Catholic Rite, whereas previously they may have appeared, individually, in special circumstances (like in a women’s monsastery), or long ago and/or in other rites.
I think some bishops won’t be happy until they have reduced the Roman Catholic Mass to a ‘Eucharistisc service’ where the priest is first amongst equals. Or even just have ‘communion services’; no need for troublesome priests.
God doesn’t need our worship. We need to please Him. A closed circle of priest and congregation, passing the Host like it was a biscuit and applauding performances of folky hymns, in a bare church, is not the best we can do.
One good thing, in a way, is that the O.F. shows that the Mass can change.That means that all the novelties could be dropped tomorrow, with no loss to its efficacy, according to posters here.
L
Layman
Guest
Actually, that’s interesting: What do EMCs, altar girls, lay readers, CITH, the vernacular, removal of altar rails and statues add to the Roman Catholic Rite, in terms of reverence, awe or beauty?
S
Shin
Guest
Zip, zero, zilch.
- Status