On The Seriousness of Liturgical Affairs

[codefro]

On The Seriousness of Liturgical Affairs

Love it.

Edited by Thomas Casey
**
IN MY LAST BLOG, I talked about the phenomenon, quite common today, of those who would delay or oppose the correction of liturgical abuses or imperfections because they feel that people’s feelings will be hurt or that they will be confused by “more change.”
While I grant that too much change too fast would be a bad thing, and that all change should be accompanied by explanations, I maintain that it is morally necessary to change from bad practices to good ones and, to the extent possible, from inferior practices to superior ones. That is, it would be sinful to refuse to make such changes. (For example, if you currently have no one in the parish who knows how to sing Gregorian chant, you can’t very well insist that the next Mass will be a full-blown Missa Cantata; but you can send a couple of talented singers to a chant workshop, or invite a schola director to come and give a workshop. There are always steps that can be taken to improve the liturgical life of the community.)** Continue

 

[Sirach2]

Codefro, isn’t it a courtesy to at least give the viewer an excerpt of your link? Simply typing a link forces someone to view it in order to know the content, when perhaps they would have little or no interest whatsoever. I believe posting the article with no comment suggests that you agree with it enough to post it. Especially your comment, “LOVE IT.” Sadly, it is another rant from a traditionist blogger that is heavily tainted with unreality.

Indeed, what we have done to our Church in the past five decades deserves to be punished with loss of faith, desecration, scandal, and moral confusion. The Lord will not be mocked: those who repudiate His gifts will be repudiated, until and unless they repent.

The only way to **achieve reform **is to have the courage to begin it, and to continue it in a consistent and principled way, as did the great saints of the Counter-Reformation

The author assumes that there is need for reform, citing again alleged “deviant” abuses in the OF. When does it ever stop? HIs blatant comments warn that the Lord will repudiate his “unrepentent” people! For what? EMHC’s? All of the other disgruntled perceptions that dare to insinuate the OF is in need of reform?

 

[floresco]

networkedblogs.com/KrLYt

This was a good article. It reminded me of the recent homily of Pope Francis in which
he said, “But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council?” Many of the Council’s recommendations about liturgy have still not been implemented or were implemented improperly and it is difficult to change things. As Pope Francis pointed out, people are resistant to change, even when the Spirit himself is calling for change.

The article addresses the question of how to make changes:

While I grant that too much change too fast would be a bad thing, and that all change should be accompanied by explanations, I maintain that it is morally necessary to change from bad practices to good ones and, to the extent possible, from inferior practices to superior ones. That is, it would be sinful to refuse to make such changes. (For example, if you currently have no one in the parish who knows how to sing Gregorian chant, you can’t very well insist that the next Mass will be a full-blown Missa Cantata; but you can send a couple of talented singers to a chant workshop, or invite a schola director to come and give a workshop. There are always steps that can be taken to improve the liturgical life of the community.)

Another good point about resistance to change was:

The serious problem with this kind of mentality is that it overlooks the serious long-term damage that is done by poor liturgy and poor custom; it does not recognize that reform has to come from all sides, not just from the top down (which is usually ineffective anyway, as the consistent and yet consistently ignored legislation on extraordinary ministers of holy communion shows); and it fails to acknowledge that each and every bishop has the grave responsibility to take charge and take action when the Holy of Holies is at stake.

I liked how the author fleshed out his points with specific examples. That helps make things clearer. Overall, it was an insightful and inspiring supplement to Pope Francis’s homily.

 

[Rich_C]

Sadly, it is another rant from a traditionist blogger that is heavily tainted with unreality.

I thought it’s tone was less of a rant than your post.

The author assumes that there is need for reform,

The last holy father said so many times. This poster’s view seem very similar to Benedict XVI’s.

HIs blatant comments warn that the Lord will repudiate his “unrepentent” people! For what?

For a spirit of ingratitude for His grace, especially the Blessed Sacrament.

EMHC’s?

He said “the habitual use of EMHCs” not just “EMHCs.” I think it’s fairly obvious that he means how they have become “ordinary” and are often seem to be used for the sake of getting laypeople “involved” whether the number of Mass attendees warrents them. Perhaps you could try to see the author’s point of view for a moment?

All of the other disgruntled perceptions that dare to insinuate the OF is in need of reform?

Again, the last holy father wrote a whole book about this and spoke of it from time to time. The author is encouraging what Benedict XVI already promoted.

 

[codefro]

Codefro, isn’t it a courtesy to at least give the viewer an excerpt of your link? Simply typing a link forces someone to view it in order to know the content, when perhaps they would have little or no interest whatsoever. I believe posting the article with no comment suggests that you agree with it enough to post it. Especially your comment, “LOVE IT.” Sadly, it is another rant from a traditionist blogger that is heavily tainted with unreality.

The author assumes that there is need for reform, citing again alleged “deviant” abuses in the OF. When does it ever stop? HIs blatant comments warn that the Lord will repudiate his “unrepentent” people! For what? EMHC’s? All of the other disgruntled perceptions that dare to insinuate the OF is in need of reform?

The link takes you to an excerpt. Another link is provided for the whole thing. It actually is not a rant whatsoever.

 

[Sirach2]

Now that the the customary traditionists are on the scene, it is going to be a fruitless effort to debate the same old, same old. Maybe the other wagons will circle soon.

Edit: Does it not occur to anyone else that the titled word “deviant” depicts a slur on the OF liturgy?

 

[floresco]

The link takes you to an excerpt. Another link is provided for the whole thing. It actually is not a rant whatsoever.

I agree, it did not strike me as a rant at all. I thought it was constructive and practical. It encouraged people to think about things they could do, rather than sounding off at problems beyond our control.

 

[Rich_C]

Sadly, it is another **rant **from a traditionist blogger…

QFT

 

[codefro]

Now that the the customary traditionists are on the scene, it is going to be a fruitless effort to debate the same old, same old. Maybe the other wagons will circle soon.

Edit: **Does it not occur to anyone else that the titled word “deviant” depicts a slur on the OF liturgy?/**QUOTE]

No, not at all. :nope:

Also, Sirach, he answers questions that you pose in previous forum posts. I would’ve thought you would have appreciated his mature and thoughtful answers.

 

[floresco]

Now that the the customary traditionists are on the scene, it is going to be a fruitless effort to debate the same old, same old.

You seem to dismiss everything that traditionalists say simply because we are traditionalists. Of course, discussion is fruitless if you have that attitude. People need to really listen to each other in order to have productive discussions.

 

[Sirach2]

You seem to dismiss everything that traditionalists say simply because we are traditionalists. Of course, discussion is fruitless if you have that attitude. People need to really listen to each other in order to have productive discussions.

IIRC, traditionists are “always right.”

 

[agnes_therese]

Does it not occur to anyone else that the titled word “deviant” depicts a slur on the OF liturgy?

Of course it does.

 

[floresco]

Edit: Does it not occur to anyone else that the titled word “deviant” depicts a slur on the OF liturgy?

There are contexts in which “deviant” has negative connotations, but this was used in a blog that is academic in tone. In academic writing “deviant” tends to be a fairly neutral term to describe anything that departs from the norm. It is not any more negative than referring to “liturgical abuses”.

 

[floresco]

IIRC, traditionists are “always right.”

I have never said that and disagree with the statement.

 

[Rich_C]

Edit: Does it not occur to anyone else that the titled word “deviant” depicts a slur on the OF liturgy?

Deviant means more or less, “against the rules.”

In many places, things have become customary in the liturgy despite begin against the rules or not the spirit the Church intended.

Seems the author wants the OF celebrated as Vatican II suggested. I don’t see anything controversial here.

 

[Rich_C]

IIRC, traditionists are “always right.”

Is this necessary?

Or different from your stance? (i.e. always being right)

 

[Saints_Alive]

The New Liturgical Movement ? A trad rant ?

There are so many contributors on that blog that are in full communion with Rome, it’s ridiculous to label the blog as anything but orthodox. It’s a great site.

 

[floresco]

The New Liturgical Movement ? A trad rant ?

Exactly. We are not talking about extremists or schismatics here.

 

[Rich_C]

Is this necessary?

Or different from your stance? (i.e. always being right)

Sirach2, I apologize for being grouchy. I’ll stick to the topic from here out.

 

[Rich_C]

I think a great point the author makes is his answer to the idea that, to paraphase, “there are more pressing matters than liturgy right now.”

“The liturgy is the tip of the spear,” he writes, “If you sharpen it, you succeed in your hunting.”

I think this is a great point.

Most of us only have face time with father or a Catholic group during (and before and after) Mass.

Beginning with the Mass gives bishops “the most bang for their buck,” so to speak. The same amount of effort there would likely yield many times more results in terms the number of souls saved than any other single area of their domain.