B
buffalo
Guest
I agree with mom here - the constant theme is to pray, pray and pray.
- Status
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
I know, Buffalo, your poor parish is under serious attack by Satan. You might recall from other threads that my personal preference is to stay and fight, but several others on these boards are convinced abandonment is the best recourse. I couldn’t remember which side of the camp you preferred.
The abuses in your parish will be stopped. Of that I am certain because we have the promise of Christ on that. The problem for us humans is trusting in God’s timing, not our own. I cannot promise the abuses in your parish will be corrected in your lifetime, nor those of your children, but I can promise God’s will will be done at some point. The Reform of the Reform is in motion, we have evidence of that. I suspect it’ll happen slower than molasses, though.
What you and your children should do in the meantime is the real pickle…I mean, besides praying fervently and fasting, of course. You’ve done just about everything a faithful member of your parish can do and I know this is why you are so disappointed.
WIth regard to the abuses in your parish, have you received confirmation from Rome or the archbishop that indeed these matters **are **abuses? If so, and they are still taking place, then you would be obliged to not participate in those anymore, right? Gosh, I do feel for you!
F
fix
Guest
Not only is this presumptuous, but untrue. You seem to like reading another’s heart? How is it you have such powers and authority?
I think Rome knows the problems well. If I have indicated otherwise it was not my intention.
I do trust Her and i am actually very patient. Perhaps you misread my words?
Have I constantly called for any of this? Buffalo produced the document and I have said I accept what is in the document. Perhaps your argument is with Rome?
As for your general tone I will say that as the lay faithful we should make out needs known. How that is done, and with what tenor, will vary. But, your notion as stated her is more your faulty conclusion and you have inflated my intetions for reasons I can’t grasp.
J
Joysong
Guest
Dear Fix,
I think I see where your difficulty lies, if I read your post correctly.
I am hesitant to keep posting from VII documents, but I think they are very instructive to us, so I’ll post something that may help you from Lumen Gentium, Ch. 21:
Joysong:
Carole
I think I see where your difficulty lies, if I read your post correctly.
What I hear you saying is that you do not trust the authority of the Bishops, and that they do not follow Rome, and therefore you may rightfully disobey. I finally understood what you meant previously about the lower authority. It was a puzzle until now.
I am hesitant to keep posting from VII documents, but I think they are very instructive to us, so I’ll post something that may help you from Lumen Gentium, Ch. 21:
There is the special grace of Holy Orders, similar to one’s special grace of Matrimony, that gives them authority and Divine assistance to minister to their flock, same as parents minister to their children. (Nobody can assume all parents exercise the grace of their vocation with perfection, and to be sure when they are in sin, may abuse their roles, as can a Bishop.)
I apologize, as well, Fix, if you took this to mean you personally. I was trying to explain the *bond of communion *that becomes severed in general on the forum when people express their concerns while disparaging other people in the process. That was foreign to the mind of the Council in the document I quoted from, being one in communion of charity.
Carole
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I’ve been thinking about this thread and some others like it. Maybe there is more in common here than anyone has been willing to admit.
Buffalo asked this question yesterday: “Can we agree that liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”?” I responded with “I’m not sure that you and I agree what is a liturgical innovation. Describe one and I’ll tell you what I think.”
It has gotten me thinking that nobody here has advocated that an abuse is a good thing and they should be stopped. Also, re-reading the thread there has been virtually no specifics on what abuse/adaptation we are really talking about. However, maybe some of us thought that what was being attacked was a legitimate and authoritative adaptation (allowed) when what was being attacked was a true abuse (not allowed).
Since Buffalo, MRS, and Fix are the most vocal regarding abuses and the rest of us might not know specifically to which they refer, I think it appropriate that they outline something they observe occurring in the Mass and we’ll either agree it is an abuse or explain our perspective on why it is an allowed adaptation.
Buffalo asked this question yesterday: “Can we agree that liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”?” I responded with “I’m not sure that you and I agree what is a liturgical innovation. Describe one and I’ll tell you what I think.”
It has gotten me thinking that nobody here has advocated that an abuse is a good thing and they should be stopped. Also, re-reading the thread there has been virtually no specifics on what abuse/adaptation we are really talking about. However, maybe some of us thought that what was being attacked was a legitimate and authoritative adaptation (allowed) when what was being attacked was a true abuse (not allowed).
Since Buffalo, MRS, and Fix are the most vocal regarding abuses and the rest of us might not know specifically to which they refer, I think it appropriate that they outline something they observe occurring in the Mass and we’ll either agree it is an abuse or explain our perspective on why it is an allowed adaptation.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
MrS said:**militant **We are, after all, the Church Militant are we not?
Innovative liturgies are the smoke that has entered the Church. I for one am NOt someone who “loves the smell of napalm in the morning”. And eventually the Catholic Church will be quite small, quite reverent, and quite at peace.
**power **The blind leading the blind… or rather the uncatechized leading the uncatechized… all overseen by too many bishops who need to retire, relearn, and repent.
I am with you on all the above points!
We have been silent or rather silenced while the modernists have taken over.
Now is our time and we are moving forward!
B
buffalo
Guest
These are a few observed in my Parish and others nearby.
- First Communion - Children and parents standing around the Altar and sometimes teen Masses
- Glass vessels
- EMoHC being called EM’s - they pour the wine into different glass vessels.
- EMoHC co-communicate with the Priest
- Talk by religious - no homily on Sunday
6.Priest leaving the Sanctuary at sign of peace - Responsorial Psalm - hymns subsituted on regualr basis
- Gift bearers entering Sanctuary and putting gifts on Altar
- Saying at the end of Mass - “the Mass never ends”
- Priest was breaking Host at Conscecration
- Liturgical gesturing during Mass
T
thistle
Guest
I guess I must be lucky as I’ve never seen any on your list, although if you give me an example of what would come under point 11 maybe I have.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
I never said anything about reading your heart. I’ve read your words and I’ve commented on what I have read. Perhaps it will help to show how what you typed gets received by my mind. Hopefully you’ll be able to point out where I misunderstood what it is you were saying:
place: I take it you mean here on the CA Forum board
general tendency: perhaps you get into trouble for ‘generalizing’ those bishops as if what happens under their watch is happening everywhere??
history: hey, you and I and anyone else on these boards who use the terms ‘liberal’ ‘conservative’ ‘traditional’ will automatically find themselves in trouble. Those labels are like bullseyes around here, I’ve noticed. I’ve learned to avoid using them.
leads many to think: I don’t see the correlation between the general tendency and history of ‘liberal’ leaning and the faithful getting from those, the impression that Rome is just a bureacracy far away.
less important: well, naturally, since I don’t see the correlation with the first part, this second kinda skips by me as well, but I admit I’m confused about the “bishop who is in communion with Her”. If a bishop is in communion with Rome, then that bishop is equally important as Rome, no? The faithful would not be led into thinking Rome lesser than the bishop, or the bishop lesser than Rome. They would be led to see Rome and the Bishop are one.
If this bishop is the one with the general tendencies and liberal leanings then he wouldn’t be in communion with Rome. Would his behavior lead naturally to the faithful thinking Rome is less important than him? I honestly don’t think most faithful pit the two against each other. I believe most naturally assume the Bishop is in communion with Rome, that’s why a wayward bishop is so dangerous.
**RS given: **Here, I must confess, I presumed you meant RS was given to all, not just to the bishops for the bishops. You didn’t specify your intent so I drew upon memory of previous posts. It’s quite possible I confused your position with that of Buffalo’s.
**Your questions: **Posed as they were suggested you were taking the position that the faithful are entitled to continue to post complaints as high up as Rome. And that by doing so they should not be considered promoting disunity, rather just fulfilling their duty and exercising their right. If I was wrong about that, I apologize. Four questions posted without further clarification as to why kind of begs the reader to figure the why out for himself.
Perhaps I’m confusing you with Buffalo, as I’ve never indicated having any problem with Rome.
Remind me, please, you accept what is in the document, but do you recognize the document was not intended for the end user - rather written for the bishops as a call to clean house, or do you recognize is as a call directly to the faithful to demand specifics from their priests? Do you consider the RS ‘higher authority’ in and of itself, enough to challenge bishops over?
The reason is a consistent theme in your posts which support persistence beyond one round. Now, it’s quite possible I am confusing your posts here as well with Buffalo’s. If so, I apologize.
F
fix
Guest
You quote my words, then draw conclusions that are not warranted. Where did I say to disobey any bishop? Where? I commented on the general tendency among many bishops in America, which is not a novel notion.
Who disagrees with the documents in VII? Does your understanding that when a bishop rejects the authority of Rome, on any particular issue, one is bound to obey the bishop on that issue?
This is a personal opinion, not a fact. We all may interpret words on the internet in varying ways. It is best to ask for clarification. I have erroneously interpreted others words before and some here have erroneously interpreted my words. The quick accusation of lack of charity may be uncharitable in itself.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
- Please be more specific on the abuse to which you refer and the time in the Mass when it occurred. I have many pictures going off in my head (some that are obvious abuses and some not).
- My Bishop has instructed that precious metals be only used. I don’t know if the USCCB is allowed to allow dioceses to glass. I do know that in Africa, precious woods are acceptable for the bread only.
- I believe this is an abuse.
- I believe this is an abuse
- I believe this is an abuse
- I understand that in a normal Sunday Mass this is discouraged but allowed in certain special settings and circumstances (i.e. private Masses or funeral/wedding Masses)
- I believe this not an abuse so long as the hymn is liturgically correct and consistant with Readings.
- This is an abuse.
- I’m not sure what was actually said. Theologically, the Church teaches that all Masses are joined with all Masses (past, present, future) and the Tridium beyond the constraints of time. Maybe this is a reference to that.
- I believe this is an abuse.
- I have no idea what you define as liturgical gesturing and when you are talking about it. Additionally, I assume that you are talking about gesturing in Mass in the U.S. that isn’t specifically designed for another culture as I know what is allowed in Africa isn’t allowed here (my parish has been blessed to have as past African associates who were in the U.S. getting trained in our Bishop’s office (one on Canon Law and the other on Marriage Tribunal Law).
F
fix
Guest
To claim one lacks faith goes to more than interpreting one’s words. Where have I said I lack faith? As the bible says I believe, help my unbelief. I, like all, need to grow more holy, but that does not mean my words here have said I lack faith in Rome or in God.
**
: perhaps you get into trouble for ‘generalizing’ those bishops as if what happens under their watch is happening everywhere??**
I guess I need to make up a chart so that every time this issue comes up I can point out all the words and deeds to prove my assertion. Without being uncharitable, your position seems disingenuous to many reading this. Surely common knowledge is not a rare commodity these days. Just a quick check in these fora and one can find news item after news item that shows bishops with a liberal leaning. It is most silly to claim it is a novel, unfounded suspicion on my part.
**
: hey, you and I and anyone else on these boards who use the terms ‘liberal’ ‘conservative’ ‘traditional’ will automatically find themselves in trouble. Those labels are like bullseyes around here, I’ve noticed. I’ve learned to avoid using them.**
They generate heat only among the liberals…
Wonder why?I am trying hard to avoid using names and examples. Do you read other threads, or are you playing coy to win a debating point?
You do not think there are, and have been, bishops and priests who are in a juridical comunion yet speak words on issues that are consistent with disobedience and/or obfuscation?
Again, that one is in communion does not mean every act is faithful. Surely, this too is not a novel concept?
What is your point? The document contains many points. Are you rejecting the document?
Are you the authority for each person as to how they respond to the document?
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
There is an entire different set of instructions other than the GIRM directed specifically for Masses with children and youth. I don’t have the book with me at the moment, but it does exist. It is quite possible this is not an abuse.
I’d have to ask for your supporting documentation which prohibits this. I’m unaware of any off the top of my head, but I vaguely recall reading something about glass vessels in an instructional format. I just don’t remember if it said it’s ok or it isn’t.
These are two separate concerns: one, what the EMHCs are called. I don’t see that as an abuse as much as poor instruction or ignorance or laziness on the part of the people using the term.
Pouring wine in the vessels…this is another where I’d need to ask your supporting documentation showing it is prohibited as I do not know and have not come across the topic in my readings.
I’m just unaware of the rules on that. Please offer your supporting documentation. It would be most interesting to read.
Now this one I know is not allowed, specifically, except under certain conditions. Again, I don’t have my book with me to find those, but perhaps the times you witnessed this fell under one of those conditions?? If it happens frequently, then most likely it is definitely an abuse. It’s supposed to be infrequent, perhaps 2-3 times per year??
I do not recall reading in my books that this is expressly prohibited. I could be wrong though, please refresh my memory with documentation…I do recall the sign of the peace being addressed with specifics.
And the hymns definely are not psalms, huh? There is a book which specifically addresses music for the liturgy. I will look up this situation when I get home. If you already have the documentation reference please offer it, it would be a big help.
Well I certainly know this is not the practice at my parish and our priests are rather orthodox so I suspect when I get home to look it up in my liturgy reference manuals I’ll find something about it. Do you have the reference which specifically prohibits it? I have seen it done in other parishes but that was long ago.
YIKES! That definitely is not in the books and deviating from the required wording is a definite no-no.I’d have to look that one up. Was it a one time occurrence? Was it just this one particular priest? Young or old?
I don’t know what this means. Please describe.
Thank you for sharing, it really does help!
J
Joysong
Guest
Dear Fix,
What is it you eat for breakfast that makes you so unpleasant and ready to snap at people? If you don’t see the reality in your tone by reading your words before hitting “submit” then I believe any further efforts I undertake will not convince you.
What is it you eat for breakfast that makes you so unpleasant and ready to snap at people? If you don’t see the reality in your tone by reading your words before hitting “submit” then I believe any further efforts I undertake will not convince you.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Ying, if it makes any difference, I never find you to be disingenuous or silly. Both characterizations appear to be personal in tone. Furthermore, while the news might highlight certain Bishops who make statements that might be controversial, I strongly disagree with the inference that this is the norm rather than the exception.
Of course. To think so would presume that our Bishops and Priests are impeccible and infallible. These are charisms that they don’t have. However, to then infer that they are in some way “bad bishops” or heretical or promoting schism is serious charge.
Personally, I don’t think anyone posting on this thread is a legitimate or qualified authority.
F
fix
Guest
Again, I am sorry if you are offended. Let us pray for each other and ask God to continue to be merciful to both of us.
F
fix
Guest
Let us be fair. The three of us may be equally guilty of personalizing too much in this thread. Let us get off that track.
There are plenty. I do not think I characterized the situation in that exact way. Please try to be accurate and I will as well.
Where did I use the words heresy or schism?
I agree.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Perhaps I’m confusing you with Buffalo again…
This is where I get the impression there is a lack of faith, in general:
When people advocate (again, perhaps I am wrongly including you in this group, if so I apologize) disobeying the leadership of the priest while the complaint issued to the higher authority (bishop, archibishop, Rome) is being reviewed and a ruling is pending on the matter I see this physical disobedience as a lack of faith in the higher authorities to rule wisely and in a timely fashion.
As noted, using the 4th commandment as the example, faithfully obeying the misdirections of a priest and/or bishop is not a sin for the faithful, it is a sin for the priest/bishop. Disobedience would be a sin, at least until a ruling is made.
Once the ruling comes down one way or the other, then the responsibilitie definitely shifts from the priest/bishop to the faithful.
If Rome rules it is not an abuse then the faithful must continue the questioned practice. Note: This is why it’s important to obey until it is definitely determined. If it comes down as ‘correct’ then not having obeyed all along would be sin on the faithful’s part.
If Rome rules it is an abuse and the faithful read/hear/learn of said ruling, then if the priest/bishop continues, the faithful are to obey Rome over the priest/bishop. The sin remains on the priest/bishop. The faithful consistent in their obedience.
So while the ruling is pending, faith in Rome is demonstrated, in my opinion, by obeying the wayward priest. Why do I see that as a demonstration of faith? Because if one trusts completely in the Holy Spirit and the Church, they know the matter will be resolved according to Truth at some point in time and in the meantime, their obedience to their immediate representative of the Church will be looked upon favorably (erring on the side of caution in case Rome rules it is not an abuse).
I hope you’ve notice you apparently are having as difficult a time reading what I’m posting as I am with reading what you post.
I didn’t say the liberal claim was novel or unfounded. What I refuse to believe, and perhaps that’s my own failing, is that just because there is a plethora of news items pointing out abuses does not mean it is pervasive. I do not trust the media. “Balanced” reporting does not exist in the U.S.
The Church is under attack by Satan, and one of the ways he does this is through the media. An overabundance of reporting abuses has the desired effect of getting the faithful to question their superiors. It introduces doubt where there was no room for it before. It is how Satan got Eve to eat the apple. Introduce the questioning and the rest follows. I believe there are more cases of masses being conducted correctly and priests leading their flock in the spirit of Christ than not. We just aren’t being shown that - on purpose.
Not so. Conservatives rally around any mention of the word as well, they defend their label. The liberals defend theirs. And both barb each other about the labels. It’s rather disheartening as it tends to bring out the worst of both sides.They generate heat only among the liberals…
Aw, how sweet.
I don’t play games at all. I’m quite direct and to the point. If the bolded sentence is supposed to be a clue of some sort, trust me, it’s beyond me. Heck, even if you did use names and examples it wouldn’t make a difference to me. I tend to look at the office, not the person holding the office. Name a bishop and he’ll either be a good one or a bad one, but the position of bishop will always command our obedience and respect. That’s how I was raised. A bad bishop is evidence only that Satan is winning on that front and a call to me to pray the rosary for him continually to help protect him.Well you didn’t specify juridical communion at the time, you just said in communion with Rome. To me that means ‘full’ communion and so there wouldn’t be a bishop speaking out of the side of his mouth.
What’s juridical communion anyway? Never heard of the term.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Yeah, but since when are we charged to dissect a priest or bishops faithfulness? You jumped down my neck for presuming things based on how I read your own words. How can you then advocate putting ourselves at risk of doing the same with our Church authority figures?
To be perfectly honest, imo, we faithful have our own job to do with regard to the Church. We are to pray, fast, give alms, care for the needy, minister to the needs of our parish. I am so busy focusing on **my **actions being in communion with Rome I don’t have the time to watch every move of my priest, monitor every word he speaks or writes (let alone that of my bishop), attend every Mass to catch him making a mistake, monitor every EMHC, usher, reader, altar server, etc. and fully immerse myself in the sacrifice of the mass. It’s just too much.
I firmly believe that with or without our policing our superiors Rome will learn of any abuses and correct them because Rome has something better than you or me, She has the Holy Spirit who knows all and reveals what is necessary at the appropriate time.
Trouble has a purpose, I do not fear or dread it. It means something greater lies beyond when the dust settles. I patiently await the outcome, doing my part in the meantime.
Well if you’d have answered the question a point could be made. In previous posts I’ve stated my position that documents written for the clergy and not the faithful are to be read in context and regarded as reference material, not a directive for the faithful. I was asking if you believed the RS was meant for you to act upon, as if it were written expressly for you. Do you?
As much as you are for each person to whom you cite the document as proof that they should and must always call their priests/bishops to the carpet whenever an ‘incident’ which appears to be an abuse occurs.
F
fix
Guest
We agree…:clapping:
To be honest, this debate is for a separate thread. If you want to start it I will be there.
Again, another thread…
Again, a new thread…Well you didn’t specify juridical communion at the time, you just said in communion with Rome. To me that means ‘full’ communion and so there wouldn’t be a bishop speaking out of the side of his mouth.
What’s juridical communion anyway? Never heard of the term.
Finally, we have come to a mutual understanding. Dialogue does work…well, true dialogue anyway.
I hate to argue with you because I often agree with you and have tremendous respect for you.
- Status