More liturgical abuse?

[Walking_Home]

I’ll offer another example on approach, employing the matter of hand shaking outside the sanctuary.

Options:

• 1. Talk with the priest, noting the appropriate guidelines and offering your theological concerns as to why it would be better if he remained in the Sanctuary rather than coming out into the nave to share the sign of peace.
• 1. Write to the bishop, his religious superiors, the principal, whoever might listen and correct this “abuse”. (Perhaps this would also be considered a second step to #1 should that fail.)
• 1. Prayerfully tolerate the matter, appreciating it for the genuine value which it does offer while hoping that someday it might either be corrected or accepted as a legitimatized option in liturgical norms.
• 1. Begin discussing matters with others who attend the Mass. Perhaps not necessarily bringing up this particular thing directly at first, but setting the foundation of theology of the Mass, the priest, and liturgical actions such that the particular question of his gesture could be raised and honestly engaged over in dialogue within that larger context, eventually and in time. Build a consensus if one exists. Then, (someday, when this has all been well established - should that day come about, recognizing that it may never), together politely suggest to the priest that while you understand and value what he is trying to do, you think it would be even better if he handled the moment differently - explaining why in hopes that he’d come to appreciate your concern and modify his behavior to align with what the greater number of people at Mass now desire and express.

Any and all of these options are legitimate and worthy. But some would prefer to choose one rather than another. That’s fine! And, it could also be argued that some options are more likely than others to have a greater and more positive effect for change (along with relationship building which is often key in respect and growth) over the long term. As such, you will have won over people rather than just stood up for the accurateness of upholding proper implementation of the rules.

---

No. 3 is progressive/liberal option. Not the praying part. We should always pray for the priests. But giving in to abuse is what has also contributed to the problems. No. 4 also has a progressive/liberal flavor.

 

[chicago]

Are you able to articulate any arguments on your own, without consistently sounding like some sort of law commentary book

Not at all. (Really, you ought to quit sterotyping in polarizations. It doesn’t help your arguements, any.) Especially considering that I can likely cite a much larger scope of documents with ready abandon than most who tend to cite certain selective ones do to suit their agendas. But it would be nice (and much more enrichingly helpful, I think) if an actual conversation could be had rather than merely resorting to simplistically slapping around a bunch of quotations in legalistic fashion in an attempt to emphatically, undeniably “prove” an argument. This is a discussion board, afterall, not a court of law. The ability for actually dialoguing with persons is, therefore, essential if effective and worthwhile communication is to occur.

 

[chicago]

---

No. 3 is progressive/liberal option. Not the praying part. We should always pray for the priests. But giving in to abuse is what has also contributed to the problems. No. 4 also has a progressive/liberal flavor.

If it is so, then so be it, acknowleging that in human relations liberality and tolerance of even others faults is often essential for forgiveness and growth to ever occur.

You aren’t married, are you?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote=Walking_Home
Gee chicago----it seems you are getting down to scraping the bottom of the barrel with the comment above. It really seems to bother some that documentation to back up ones position is available.

Not at all. (Really, you ought to quit sterotyping in polarizations. It doesn’t help your arguements, any.) Especially considering that I can likely cite a much larger scope of documents with ready abandon than most who tend to cite certain selective ones do to suit their agendas. But it would be nice (and much more enrichingly helpful, I think) if an actual conversation could be had rather than merely resorting to simplistically slapping around a bunch of quotations in legalistic fashion in an attempt to emphatically, undeniably “prove” an argument. This is a discussion board, afterall, not a court of law. The ability for actually dialoguing with persons is, therefore, essential if effective and worthwhile communication is to occur.

---

I am having a conversation—a conversation backed up by documentation----which again—from your post above-- is the root of your problem in this conversation----that there is documentation.

 

[Walking_Home]

If it is so, then so be it, acknowleging that in human relations liberality and tolerance of even others faults is often essential for forgiveness and growth to ever occur.

You aren’t married, are you?

---

You seem to be forgetting—True charity calls for fraternal correction. Without true charity — all other is false.

 

[chicago]

---

I am having a conversation—a conversation backed up by documentation----which again—from your post above-- is the root of your problem in this conversation----that there is documentation.

I don’t have a problem with documentation. But review this thread. It often reads more like a law book.

Converstaions are two way discussions (or sometimes there are even more voices than two.) You are pontificating more than conversing.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t have a problem with documentation. But review this thread. It often reads more like a law book.

Converstaions are two way discussions (or sometimes there are even more voices than two.) You are pontificating more than conversing.

---

Yea right–first you say you have no problem with documentation then you go on to deny the first statement with the statements on “law book” and “pontificating” .

Face it—your (and others) problem with this thread is that there is documentation. Documentation that can not be denied—no matter what methods a person tries to use to deny it.

 

[chicago]

---

You seem to be forgetting—True charity calls for fraternal correction. Without true charity — all other is false.

And true charity often also calls for a certain degree of tolerance and patience, not mere immediate insistences. If someone isn’t ready to receive direct “correction” or a situation does not prudently call for it’s use at the moment; then, in light of the greater good and hope of eventual change, one must recognize the need for stepping back and giving it up to God.

 

[Walking_Home]

And true charity often also calls for a certain degree of tolerance and patience, not mere immediate insistences. If someone isn’t ready to receive direct “correction” or a situation does not prudently call for it’s use at the moment; then, in light of the greater good and hope of eventual change, one must recognize the need for stepping back and giving it up to God.

---

We have had approx 30 years of “tolerance” and “patience” which have done nothing other than let the wind of manipulation to continue to grow. It is the Church who has stated it is a time to act. It is the ones who do not “give it up” that have taken the upper hand by the rest of us stepping back.

What you and others advocate thru various forms and means–is just the continuation of the problems that we have.

 

[chicago]

---

Yea right–first you say you have no problem with documentation then you go on to deny the first statement with the statements on “law book” and “pontificating” .

Face it—your (and others) problem with this thread is that there is documentation. Documentation that can not be denied—no matter what methods a person tries to use to deny it.

Alright, I’ll face it. You believe that you are always and undeniably accurate… and you have documentation to prove it! No one else could possibly counter THAT!

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Yea right–first you say you have no problem with documentation then you go on to deny the first statement with the statements on “law book” and “pontificating” .

Face it—your (and others) problem with this thread is that there is documentation. Documentation that can not be denied—no matter what methods a person tries to use to deny it.

Alright, I’ll face it. You believe that you are always and undeniably accurate… and you have documentation to prove it! No one else could possibly counter THAT!

---

Goodness chicago—you are coming across a tad undone. I and others only provide what the Church Herself has supplied. You seem to be really having a major problem with that.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t have a problem with documentation. But review this thread. It often reads more like a law book.

Converstaions are two way discussions (or sometimes there are even more voices than two.) You are pontificating more than conversing.

He does seem to come across as a modern day Javert.

 

[chicago]

---

Goodness chicago—you are coming across a tad undone. I and others only provide what the Church Herself has supplied. You seem to be really having a major problem with that.

It’s certainly how you’d like to spin it to try to show the upper hand, even if it isn’t the reality as expressed. Hopefully, brighter lights can see through such tactics.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicago
I don’t have a problem with documentation. But review this thread. It often reads more like a law book.

Converstaions are two way discussions (or sometimes there are even more voices than two.) You are pontificating more than conversing.

He does seem to come across as a modern day Javert.

---

I see you have joined chicago in going under and scraping the botton of the barrel with that statement.

 

[estesbob]

---

I see you have joined chicago in going under and scraping the botton of the barrel with that statement.

Just my opinion. Javert was in the “right” also. He could quote the law extensively also. What he lacked was a sense of perspective.

 

[Walking_Home]

Just my opinion. Javert was in the “right” also. He could quote the law extensively also. What he lacked was a sense of perspective.

---

Many of us have had many years of perspective --perspective with inaction—and look at the state of the Mass now.

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s certainly how you’d like to spin it to try to show the upper hand, even if it isn’t the reality as expressed. Hopefully, brighter lights can see through such tactics.

---

No spin–no tactics–the documents speak for themselves.

 

[anamchara]

Except what they learn here may not correct, especially with the large amount of fundamentalist bias on these issues.

Jim

:yup:

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Walking_Home]

As can be seen—it will be an uphill struggle to correct the abuses in the Mass–both for the Church and those who try to support Her in this endeavor.

 

[Woodstock]

The way to deal with this is to politiely offer your services in being an EMHC (and maybe recruit a couple of others to do likewise.) Don’t approach it as, “We are doing something wrong which needs to be corrected,” but rather, “Father, I notice that you don’t have anyone to assist with the cup at communion. Could I help? I’d really like to offer my service in that way and I think that there might be others who would, also!” In this way, you’d be seeking a positive solution which could be found acceptable while making people feel involved in a way which ought to be considered commendable by all parties involved.

I thought this advice was good and addressed all the problems involved, so I’ve quoted it.

Another possible way for Father to offer both species in the same amount of time is through intinction. You could offer your services the same way as Chicago suggested, but instead of offering to be an EHMC, you can offer to hold whichever species is the appropriate one (I don’t know) to allow him to intinct.