OF Supporters Please Stand Up!

[japhy]

japhy, I am very grateful to you for your post #171, pointing out that GIRM #43 makes provision for bishops to allow for standing at the consecration if various circumstances are present.

I thank you for the compliment.

Our bishop KNEW that he had the authority to allow the attendees at Family Mass to stand instead of sit. I’m sure he (and many other bishops) know more about the “books” than most of us will ever know.

I too am quite sure that Bishop Doran, in his wisdom as shepherd of his flock, knew that the Church granted him the right to make this pastoral decision. He was exercising his pastoral ministry without overstepping his authority as a servant to and guardian of the liturgy of the Church.

I still say that we should stop trying to do the bishop’s job for him. Instead of assuming that something “different” in the Mass is an “abuse,” why don’t we assume that Father and Bishop know exactly what they are doing.

At my parish, we have one priest, our pastor. We have visiting priests. Many of them pour the Precious Blood from one chalice to another. I’d expect that they don’t know what they’re doing is an abuse. So I mentioned it to my pastor, who said he would take care of the matter.

But my pastor also, for reasons I do not know, says “We thank you for counting us worthy to be in your presence and serve you” in E.P. II (instead of “… to stand in your presence…”), and he says “Happy are we who are called to His supper” as he shows us the Host (instead of “Happy are those who are called…”). Both changes, although they are a single word, do not belong to him to make. Nor is it within the power of a Bishop to grant his priests permission to change those words. I have yet to ask my pastor about the situation, simply because I do not know how to address the matter without making the wrong impression; the point of the matter is, if he (or any priest) can change those words to what he feels are more accurate (or at the least, words he prefers), what is stopping him from changing other words?

And if this doesn’t work, then why not find a Mass that is suitable for our particular needs? … Draw near to God and ask Him to give you patience and reverence, even if you feel that your Mass is incorrect.

Part of the motive to not seek elsewhere is because, if the abuse is real, it needs to be stopped and corrected, not simply because it irritates me, but because it is objectively an abuse and could be adversely effecting the faith of the people who are exposed to it. But clearly this should be done, as you say, with “patience and reverence”, and with prayer to God for the graces needed to be charitable.

 

[EasterJoy]

Since the Catholic Church is the True bride of Christ of course the protestant churches were affected by the aftermath of VII…supernaturally that is. Even though protestantism didn’t acknowledge the Catholic CHurch…it still benefitted from the Catholic Church supernaturally…after all the Catholic church is where grace flows from…

We have to agree that the Catholic Church is the true bride of Christ. RIgth? The source of Grace…Right? How can negative affects on the Bride of Christ NOT cause supernatural effects on the world?

I don’t totally disagree with your thesis. While it isn’t either bad or incorrect for us to suppose that what we Catholics do has an effect of all of Christendom and, indeed, all of the world–I believe it absolutely does, for the record–it is a bit of a stretch to invoke this thesis in a blanket manner for the purposes of retrospective historical analysis. You have to admit that by your reasoning it would be possible to maintain that any change in the morality of the entire world, good or bad, could be put directly at the feet of the Vatican. My question is this: what is the evidence for a direct link? What is the evidence that doing nothing would also have had its own effects, which cannot be assumed to have been better?

For instance, let us say that someone thinks it is bad that the Holy See has maintained the discipline of celibacy in the priesthood. It might be pointed out that all of the problems to be found in the celibate priesthood also exist in married clergy in other denominations. AHA! might be the response. Don’t you see, if priests were only allowed to marry, this would sanctify the ministers in all the other denominations, and their married clergy wouldn’t have so many of those problems, either! And so on, and so on.

I think that the problems we are talking about were some of the very things that caused Pope John XXIII to call the Second Vatican Council in the first place. He didn’t look at a Church that was sailing along wonderfully, a bastion of normalcy in a world of hurt and confusion, and think, “This place needs some shaking up.” There were serious problems afoot, even within the Church herself.

The pedophile crisis is a recent example. According to his grandmother, my husband’s grandmother’s parents left their local parish and started attending the local Protestant church shortly after his grandmother made her First Holy Communion because her grandfather believed the priest was being improper towards the children…as in, seriously improper. This would have been about 1906, in a small, isolated town in the Midwest. Even when they moved to a different town, they didn’t go back to the Catholic Church. These problems did exist before Vatican II, just as abuse existed in families for centuries before incest and domestic violoence became topics of public discussion within our lifetimes. At every level, from personal to religious, there was a time when propriety did not allow these topics to come up, at least not in front of children or the laity. Just as it can be fairly assumed that there were more than nine invalid Catholic marriages eligible for annulment in the US before 1930, there were also serious problems in the Church to be dealt with when Vatican II was convened.

What would have been, had Vatican II and its implementation been handled differently? We don’t know. From my standpoint, what would have been is what was. We don’t get a re-do. We would profit, though, from looking back and asking if other means of implementing change that were not tried might be worth trying in our time.

I think that we should also give credit where credit is due and remember this: what held the Church together during that huge change was the willingness of the laity to be obedient. We were saved by those Catholics who, choosing between what they had grown to love and depend on and what their bishops asked, trusted in the power of the Holy Spirit guiding the Papacy, and did what they were asked. Without that, the effects of Vatican II truly would have been disasterous. By the obedience of those who loved the TLM but did not defect to defend it, we have a Church that escaped a major schism. Thanks be to God for that tremendous grace and blessing. That was really done right, and we should follow their example in how we handle change in the future…even if that change is to scrap the whole thing and try to go back to the way we used to do it. I would not want that, but if it were asked of me, I would do it.

 

[ethelzguy]

ethelzguy, could you make a constructive response to MrS and myself, rather than just a “sheesh”?

Sheesh, what else is there to say to those who have obviously deemed themselves appointed to oversee, critique, criticize, and otherwise nit-pick any and all aspects of life within the Church?

From the Liturgy, to music, to what Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and even Popes should and shouldn’t do, and how and when to or not to do it?

It never stops for some, does it?

The Pope could declare, with total obedience from all Bishops and Priests, that every parish would have a TLM every Sunday, and the complaing still wouldn’t stop. We could re-install all the communion rails, re-initiate COTT on our knees, and Gregorian Chant at all Masses, and it still wouldn’t stop.

If a parish priest doesn’t get involved in the parish life, he is called “distant”, “aloof”, or “standoffish”…if he wades right into the middle of parish life, he is “neglecting the duties of his priestly office”

They just can’t please you, can they? And you wonder why vocations are down.

There are clearly those, who deem themselves above those called by God and the Holy Spirit to oversee the HMC. I mean, come on, some of you actually take still and video cameras to NO/OF Masses with you, so you can document some perceived abuse.

How sad.

Sheesh.

 

[japhy]

Sheesh, what else is there to say to those who have obviously deemed themselves appointed to oversee, critique, criticize, and otherwise nit-pick any and all aspects of life within the Church?

It sounded to me like MrS was offering a suggestion (albeit to this forum, not to a priest in particular).

If a parish priest doesn’t get involved in the parish life, he is called “distant”, “aloof”, or “standoffish”…if he wades right into the middle of parish life, he is “neglecting the duties of his priestly office”

Well, gee, there must be a middle ground, then!

There are clearly those, who deem themselves above those called by God and the Holy Spirit to oversee the HMC. I mean, come on, some of you actually take still and video cameras to NO/OF Masses with you, so you can document some perceived abuse.

I don’t think I know anyone on this forum who has taken recording equipment to Mass to document abuse, perceived or real. I have never attended a Mass for the purpose of witnessing liturgical abuse. A lot of the videos/stills of liturgical abuse I have seen are bona fide abuse. I have personally witnessed liturgical abuse (some not as bad as others).

I’m curious, though… if I were to come here claiming to have witnessed a heinous liturgical abuse, would anyone believe me with documentary evidence? And if I provided such evidence, would I be chided for having brought recording equipment to that particular Mass to capture such evidence?

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t think I know anyone on this forum who has taken recording equipment to Mass to document abuse, perceived or real. I have never attended a Mass for the purpose of witnessing liturgical abuse. A lot of the videos/stills of liturgical abuse I have seen are bona fide abuse. I have personally witnessed liturgical abuse (some not as bad as others).

Where then, pray tell, are all these assorted photos and videos coming from if none of us are taking recording devices to Mass?

Was the photo yesterday of someone holding their hands up and out during the Our Father with a rosary in their hand “abuse”?

 

[ethelzguy]

I’m curious, though… if I were to come here claiming to have witnessed a heinous liturgical abuse, would anyone believe me with documentary evidence? And if I provided such evidence, would I be chided for having brought recording equipment to that particular Mass to capture such evidence?

If it’s NOT ok to take pictures/video during a wedding, funeral, or first communion Mass, then I’d have to wonder about the appropriateness of shooting photos or video during Mass to complain about an alleged abuse.

If the abuse is real, photos wouldn’t/shouldn’t be needed, with that many others in attendence who could testify to the abuse?

 

[japhy]

Where then, pray tell, are all these assorted photos and videos coming from if none of us are taking recording devices to Mass?

From other people. I said I don’t know anyone on this forum who is the source of the photos and videos. I did not say no one is bringing recording devices, I said I don’t know the people who are, and I am not one of them.

The video of the Halloween Masses with people in costume (including the priest) probably got started because one year, the Mass happened, and next year, some parishioner was prepared to record evidence about the abuse.

The video of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” receiving Holy Communion was probably taken because it was known that the “sisters” were going to be at Mass and intended to receive.

The video of a “clown gospel and homily” might have been taken by someone at the request of the parish, or it could have been taken by someone who was concerned about it (if, for example, the “clown” part had been publicized in the bulletin).

The video of the recent CTA Mass and the JOA Palm Sunday liturgy were most likely taken by participants, not by abuse-hunters.

I don’t know how the video of the woman who was denied Communion by a Bishop for kneeling originated, unless the woman was a “plant”, but I would hope that the people concerned about such abuses are not willing to turn the Most Blessed Sacrament into a prop or stooge.

I’ll say it again: I have never attended a Mass with the intent of spotting liturgical abuses. That does not mean, however, that I have not noticed them.

Was the photo yesterday of someone holding their hands up and out during the Our Father with a rosary in their hand “abuse”?

Not at all. I remember that picture, but don’t know what thread it was in… Anyway, there’s no reason to call that an abuse. Now, if the priest had instructed the people to raise their hands for the Our Father, that would be a different matter.

 

[japhy]

If it’s NOT ok to take pictures/video during a wedding, funeral, or first communion Mass, then I’d have to wonder about the appropriateness of shooting photos or video during Mass to complain about an alleged abuse.

Who says it’s not ok to record those events? I don’t know of any Church-wide ban of recording equipment at Masses. It’s probably done at a diocesan or parish level. (While certain methods of taking pictures and video in a church are less seemly than others, not all photo-taking is bad! It’s when the sacraments get sensationalized, and the people become the focus and not the sacraments, that things aren’t right.)

Recording abuse at Mass is a matter of protecting the integrity of the sacraments and the Mass, not of sensationalizing them!

If the abuse is real, photos wouldn’t/shouldn’t be needed, with that many others in attendence who could testify to the abuse?

You’ve got a good point there. That will depend on the people actually reporting it, though. Then again, some people need to see it to believe it…

 

[ethelzguy]

Not at all. I remember that picture, but don’t know what thread it was in… **Anyway, there’s no reason to call that an abuse. ** Now, if the priest had instructed the people to raise their hands for the Our Father, that would be a different matter.

So we agree

That being said, don’t you find it odd, or a little like “abuse hunting”, that someone would take that photo during a Mass?

I am not saying that blatant abuse should be tolerated, or go unreported. But, it also seems clear that some are really going to the limit to find and document what they percieve to be abuse.

cheers,

TBL

 

[MrS]

So we agree

That being said, don’t you find it odd, or a little like “abuse hunting”, that someone would take that photo during a Mass?

I am not saying that blatant abuse should be tolerated, or go unreported. But, it also seems clear that some are really going to the limit to find and document what they percieve to be abuse.

cheers,

TBL

That seems to be the real issue. If posters could agree on what is an abuse and what is not, we would be halfway home.

The stumbling block is that the changes (at least the ones in the last 4 decades) are seen by many as simply an abuse turned norm… and by others as simply a norm, and thus acceptable.

The other stumbling block is the humanity of our priests. We should accept their humanity, and the mistakes they make just like we do. But their calling, their vocation, is to be a priest.

They all can’t be St John Vianney… but we should pray to their patron saint that we stay out of their way so they can at least try.

.

 

[japhy]

So we agree

Yes. Hand-raising or hand-holding during the Our Father, despite not being in the rubrics, is not an abuse when it is a private pious practice (although I don’t do it, and I don’t think it should be done). It becomes an abuse when it is forced upon a person by the priest, because that priest is adding something to the liturgy.

That being said, don’t you find it odd, or a little like “abuse hunting”, that someone would take that photo during a Mass?

I have absolutely no idea why that photo was taken. Can you remind me which thread it was in again? I don’t actually remember it being presented in the context of “here’s a liturgical abuse!” And it could very well be a photo taken for a totally benign purpose. Please, locate that post for me, if you could!

UPDATE:

I found the post and the picture:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3176&d=1211947815

The post asks “Where did this come from???”.

But the picture doesn’t look like “evidence”. I’d like to know where the poster found the picture.

 

[MrS]

It sounded to me like MrS was offering a suggestion (albeit to this forum, not to a priest in particular).

Well, gee, there must be a middle ground, then!

Sheesh:shrug: Sounds like fatherhood. I could have worked 7 days and longer hours and made more money… then I would not have been around wo be a dad.

Or I could have spent more time doing dad things, and then we could not have enjoyed some things that only money could provide.

Or I could have gone to church less (I did) and placed the souls of the family in jeopardy (or at least in ignorance).

Or I could have gone to church more (I finally did) and the result could have been “oppression” and rejection of things religious.

We can’t bat 1.000

But as Ernie Harwell used to comment about a strikeout… “Strike three, he’s gone, he just stood there like the house on the side of the road.”

I hope to go down swinging if I have to go down at all. Show me a proper OF, and I will defend it. Show me most OFs and I’ll show you abuse=norm.

.

 

[EasterJoy]

I hardly think it’s wise or prudent to rely on an internet forum for something as serious as vocational discernment or spiritual counsel.

The Holy Spirit can use anybody to speak to you, but having said that…I’m with you on this one. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that the comment you’re responding to wasn’t meant tongue-in-cheek!

 

[EasterJoy]

From other people. I said I don’t know anyone on this forum who is the source of the photos and videos. I did not say no one is bringing recording devices, I said I don’t know the people who are, and I am not one of them.

The video of the Halloween Masses with people in costume (including the priest) probably got started because one year, the Mass happened, and next year, some parishioner was prepared to record evidence about the abuse.

The video of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” receiving Holy Communion was probably taken because it was known that the “sisters” were going to be at Mass and intended to receive.

The video of a “clown gospel and homily” might have been taken by someone at the request of the parish, or it could have been taken by someone who was concerned about it (if, for example, the “clown” part had been publicized in the bulletin).

The video of the recent CTA Mass and the JOA Palm Sunday liturgy were most likely taken by participants, not by abuse-hunters.

I don’t know how the video of the woman who was denied Communion by a Bishop for kneeling originated, unless the woman was a “plant”, but I would hope that the people concerned about such abuses are not willing to turn the Most Blessed Sacrament into a prop or stooge.

I’ll say it again: I have never attended a Mass with the intent of spotting liturgical abuses. That does not mean, however, that I have not noticed them.

It is unlikely that the “abuse police” were the source of those videos. I think it is most likely the “evidence” in question was collected by people who don’t think the liturgies in question exhibit any abuses. The picture of the person holding the rosary might not have even been taken within the context of a Mass. I think the photographer might even have been trying to give an artistic quality to it, as if it were intended for the cover of a pamphlet or something.

Can’t we agree that it is more likely that a progressive is going to do something outside the boundaries, and declare it OK, while a traditionalist is more likely to reject something within the boundaries, and declare it out of bounds?

Or, as the saw goes (and yes, it is humor, so don’t take it too seriously!), progressive morality says, “If you see a yellow light, hit the gas”, while traditional morality says, “All that is not required is forbidden, and all that not forbidden is required.”

 

[japhy]

Can’t we agree that it is more likely that a progressive is going to do something outside the boundaries, and declare it OK, while a traditionalist is more likely to reject something within the boundaries, and declare it out of bounds?

I don’t think I’d agree with that. Why would a traditionalist reject something that is permissible and declare it not permissible?

 

[Dies_Irae]

…

I found the post and the picture:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3176&d=1211947815

The post asks “Where did this come from???”.

Must be one of those N.O. services where everyone prays the rosary instead of actively participating!

 

[ethelzguy]

“All that is not required is forbidden, and all that not forbidden is required.”

That sounds like what my Church of Christ friend tells me

 

[elts1956]

I for one would not want to tell Him I “ecumanized” His Liturgy.

I for one would not want to tell Him that I settled or prefered or did not care enough for the vertical worship, and instead went along with the horizontal crowd.

All clergy deserve our prayers all the time. The High Priest deserves even more.

.

Whose Liturgy? As far as I know, the hierarchy in the Catholic Church are the ones who decide on Liturgy. Is Liturgy dogma, or tradition with a Capital T?

 

[elts1956]

Maybe if more parish priests would “express no interest” (or at least oversight, not time-consuming involvement) in these things, and delegate them to parishioners, then the priest could devote more time to the sacraments and priestly involvement.

If I need a priest at 2am or 2pm, I can only hope he is available and not tied up at bingo or business meetings, or tired out from being so involved.

I have had pastors who could be found praying in Church in their “off time”. And I have had pastors who were on so many boards and committees and involved in non-priestly functions.

I prefer the former.

I perhaps a priest becomes a dedicated priest because of sincere consecrations and confessions… not personal ambitions, or advice from forum posters.

.

Tell the Bishops who expect a certain “monetary” return from the parishes of their priests. Perhaps secular priests do sometimes involve themselves in non spiritual matters, but I think for the most part all are very concerned with the spiritual welfare of their parishioners.

 

[MrS]

Whose Liturgy? As far as I know, the hierarchy in the Catholic Church are the ones who decide on Liturgy. Is Liturgy dogma, or tradition with a Capital T?

HIS Liturgy. The priest, and not the laity, are simply the liturgists who should be offering the Mass to God… not for the appeasement of the pew-sitters.

So yes, you are correct that the CC decides on the particulars. Now I only wish they were more clear and authoritative in their decisions.

.