On The Seriousness of Liturgical Affairs

[Saints_Alive]

Right in line with what BXVI said is this line …

“The Tradition does not lose its normativity just because ungrateful revolutionaries turn their backs to it.”

Solid article and though provoking.

 

[Rich_C]

Right in line with what BXVI said is this line …

“The Tradition does not lose its normativity just because ungrateful revolutionaries turn their backs to it.”

Solid article and though provoking.

Good line. And of course, I think both the holy father and the author are talking about individual lapses in discipline and activist liturgists rather than the Church, herself.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m really glad for the people who have no problems with the liturgy in their parish.

I know that there will always be those who will justify ‘small’ changes.

I know that some customs, even if I really don’t like them --or even if I really DO like them–don’t really matter and don’t cause real problems.

But (you knew there would be a but–) there are places, there are people, for whom the liturgy has, through ‘custom’ over years or decades, become not ‘the liturgy’, but ‘St So-and-So’s liturgy, or "Father X’s liturgy’. Because St So and So 30 years ago for example had a large population of extroverts and guitar players, St So and So embraced all kinds of ‘extrovert’ things, some good, some bad… Now, even with the GIRM, St. So and So routinely starts off Mass with Father going ‘off the cuff’, wandering the floors, calling for ‘audience participation’, ad libbing the Mass, because, “That’s the way we DO it here, that’s what the people asked for, it’s more important to give them what they want than to stick to ‘hide bound old rules’ and Jesus was a rebel too”. . .

the attitude from St So and So is just as putatively ‘intolerant’ and resistant to change and reluctant to ‘turn back the clock’ to any other liturgy than theirs. Because they have already ‘changed’, they think it is unnecessary to do any further change, even though some of their changes might be illicit or invalid.

I have to say in my neck of the woods I see many more deviant customs than most. I would WELCOME a Mass said in English, done with hand-holding at the Our Father, with everybody dressed in jeans and sweats, applause for the musicians, priests in tie dye, etc., provided the Mass was said without ad libs and ‘add-ons’ and liturgical dance etc.

 

[Rich_C]

I’m really glad for the people who have no problems with the liturgy in their parish.

I know that there will always be those who will justify ‘small’ changes.

I know that some customs, even if I really don’t like them --or even if I really DO like them–don’t really matter and don’t cause real problems.

But (you knew there would be a but–) there are places, there are people, for whom the liturgy has, through ‘custom’ over years or decades, become not ‘the liturgy’, but ‘St So-and-So’s liturgy, or "Father X’s liturgy’. Because St So and So 30 years ago for example had a large population of extroverts and guitar players, St So and So embraced all kinds of ‘extrovert’ things, some good, some bad… Now, even with the GIRM, St. So and So routinely starts off Mass with Father going ‘off the cuff’, wandering the floors, calling for ‘audience participation’, ad libbing the Mass, because, “That’s the way we DO it here, that’s what the people asked for, it’s more important to give them what they want than to stick to ‘hide bound old rules’ and Jesus was a rebel too”. . .

the attitude from St So and So is just as putatively ‘intolerant’ and resistant to change and reluctant to ‘turn back the clock’ to any other liturgy than theirs. Because they have already ‘changed’, they think it is unnecessary to do any further change, even though some of their changes might be illicit or invalid.

I have to say in my neck of the woods I see many more deviant customs than most. I would WELCOME a Mass said in English, done with hand-holding at the Our Father, with everybody dressed in jeans and sweats, applause for the musicians, priests in tie dye, etc., provided the Mass was said without ad libs and ‘add-ons’ and liturgical dance etc.

I’ve known more than a few Catholics in your position.

Perhaps you could send your bishop a copy of this article. He might not be aware of the problem, or he fear he doesn’t have the strength to follow through with what would undoubtedly be a tough job. I’ll say a prayer for him after my own bishop at Sunday Mass.

 

[Sirach2]

I have never said that and disagree with the statement.

Check it out - last post at the bottom.

But as it went on, it became clear that** I was right** and other people were seeing it to.

I can furnish the same sentiment from others, but in this instance, I was responding to your assertions when you said earlier, “People need to really listen to each other in order to have productive discussions.” How do we do that when trads claim they are right?

 

[Basilios]

How do we do that when trads claim they are right?

Do you accept that traditionalists can in fact be correct on certain issues? That is a good beginning

 

[floresco]

Perhaps you could send your bishop a copy of this article. He might not be aware of the problem, or he fear he doesn’t have the strength to follow through with what would undoubtedly be a tough job. I’ll say a prayer for him after my own bishop at Sunday Mass.

This reminds me of another thing I liked about the article. Did you notice how sympathetic it was to the problems of bishops and clergy? There was a recognition that these are usually men trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation.

 

[Rich_C]

This reminds me of another thing I liked about the article. Did you notice how sympathetic it was to the problems of bishops and clergy? There was a recognition that these are usually men trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation.

And well it should be. The solution will always rest with them, and they do not have it easy.

Just the other day I suggested fleeing a “bad” parish rather than trying to help father correct it.

I may have been wrong. Perhaps more than prayer is needed.

What kinds of things can lay people do (I mean, besides writing the bishop, we know that) to help priests and bishops improve how the Mass is celebrated?

 

[floresco]

Check it out - last post at the bottom.

I can furnish the same sentiment from others, but in this instance, I was responding to your assertions when you said earlier, “People need to really listen to each other in order to have productive discussions.” Ho w do we do that when trads claim they are right?

You would reflect my position better if you quoted the sentence in context.

I really did start that thread with an open mind. I was prepared to retract my position if it turned out to be incorrect. But as it went on, it became clear that I was right and other people were seeing it to.
.

 

[TimothyH]

Articles like that bore me to death because there is always one thing missing… Jesus.

Nowhere to be found.

-Tim-

 

[floresco]

And well it should be. The solution will always rest with them, and they do not have it easy.

Just the other day I suggested fleeing a “bad” parish rather than trying to help father correct it.

I may have been wrong. Perhaps more than prayer is needed.

What kinds of things can lay people do (I mean, besides writing the bishop, we know that) to help priests and bishops improve how the Mass is celebrated?

I was in a parish which started a choir to sing chant and traditional Catholic music to support the pastor’s desire to incorporate these more in the Mass. I joined it when the priest asked.

Another thing is to recognize and thank them for the things they do well.

 

[Rich_C]

I was in a parish which started a choir to sing chant and traditional Catholic music to support the pastor’s desire to incorporate these more in the Mass. I joined it when the priest asked.

Another thing is to recognize and thank them for the things they do well.

That’s great. Our parish recently asked for more servers for the 5pm monthly Solemn High Mass. I have hesitated to learn, but this thread has encouraged me to jump in and help out.

But my poor wife will be a “server widow” now!

 

[Sirach2]

You would reflect my position better if you quoted the sentence in context.

You are overlooking the fact that you still believed you were right and not in need of correction. Those on the other side of the coin [and they were many], would disagree with you and believe THEY were right. It’s all perception, and you guys really do think you are right. I don’t need to pull other posts to prove it.

I would love to have an honest discussion with open-minded people.

 

[Rich_C]

I would love to have an honest discussion with open-minded people.

Me too, those are the best.

I just thought of another positive thing we could do (sort of piggybacking on Floresco’s idea) we could all thank our priests more. It’s a small thing but anything is better than nothing.

 

[Sirach2]

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.

I wish I had a nickel for all the times Card. Ratzinger’s book is quoted here, as if it is a be all, end all. That was his personal opinion, and as such, does not become liturgical law when he holds the Keys of Peter.

Have you noticed that Pope Francis prays the liturgy in the vernacular, facing the people, and uses EMHC’s, and the people attending his masses receive the Eucharist under both CITH and COTT. So which pope’s celebration is more correct? Isn’t it foolish to pit them against one another?

 

[TimothyH]

The author tips his hand when he writes of the, " ‘Great Schism’ between the preconciliar and postconciliar periods."

Clearly his is not talking about liturgical abuses but as the title of the article plainly states, about customs, and so one can only assume that this means the current Ordinary Form of the Mass.

I’m sorry the author feels this way but am glad that he labels the piece a “Blog Post” and as such, makes it clear that it is his own personal opinion.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

I wish I had a nickel for all the times Card. Ratzinger’s book is quoted here, as if it is a be all, end all. That was his personal opinion, and as such, does not become liturgical law when he holds the Keys of Peter.

Actually, during his pontificate he used the keys of Peter to promote the betterment of the liturgy along those same lines. For example, the new English translation of the 3rd Roman Missal, in which he took a personal hand in getting done.

Have you noticed that Pope Francis prays the liturgy in the vernacular, facing the people, and uses EMHC’s, and the people attending his masses receive the Eucharist under both CITH and COTT. So which pope’s celebration is more correct? Isn’t it foolish to pit them against one another?

No one here is pitting them against each other. You’re punching at air.

 

[Rich_C]

The author tips his hand when he writes of the, " ‘Great Schism’ between the preconciliar and postconciliar periods."

Clearly his is not talking about liturgical abuses but as the title of the article plainly states, about customs, and so one can only assume that this means the current Ordinary Form of the Mass.

I’m sorry the author feels this way but am glad that he labels the piece a “Blog Post” and as such, makes it clear that it is his own personal opinion.

-Tim-

I think it was a poor choice of words, too. But I think he meant the “Catholic Revolution” as Father Andrew Greeley calls it, the big cultural shift in Western Catholicism in the 1960 and 1970s.

He never said anything about the Ordinary Form being deficient. The only way to reach that conclusion is to put words in his mouth.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, during his pontificate he used the keys of Peter to promote the betterment of the liturgy along those same lines. For example, the new English translation of the 3rd Roman Missal, in which he took a personal hand in getting done.

Actually his main thrust was to correct the mistranslations of “multis” in various languages, including English, German, Spanish, and Italian.

 

[Sirach2]

Actually, during his pontificate he used the keys of Peter to promote the betterment of the liturgy along those same lines. For example, the new English translation of the 3rd Roman Missal, in which he took a personal hand in getting done.

This missal does not address the “deviant lilturgial customs” that are so painful for trads, but simply changed the wording. Some of it is utterly beautiful, whereas, I cannot agree that ALL of the new wording was a “betterment.” Some of the simplicity called for by the Council so that the liturgy could be understood readily by the common man in the pew has become much more mundane and a needless repetition. Through my fault, three times? One isn’t enough?