People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[EasterJoy]

I really doubt this would happen. It would drive so many folks away. It’d be nice (from my point of view) if both were said by as many parishes as possible. The crazy puppet junk has to stop though. Even the protestants I grew up with know better than to act that way in Church.

Maybe then, we actually would have a chance to assist at the EWTN Novus Ordo that I enjoyed watching on T.V. for so long.

Maybe if they had kept the Tridentine Mass the Novus Ordo could have developed according to the Vatican’s wishes (i.e. no American prelates going nuts with the Crosby, Stills, and Nash!). Maybe now that both are licit, the Novus Ordo will be brought in line with what they wanted it to be.

The Pope has expressed the opinion that the EF and OF will be mutually enriching, too. I think you are both right on that. As to ‘what would have been’, that is impossible to know. There isn’t an alternative reality to try it out on. What would have been is what was.

The Holy See saw fit to largely suppress the TLM for a time, so we never know what tomorrow will bring. It seems best to trust the Church to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and on that account to resolve to take what comes with obedience.

Again, I think the example of the last generation of traditionalists is a good one. They did not let what they liked keep them from doing what duty required them to do. That was truly admirable, and worthy of imitation.

 

[GemmaRose]

Gemma,

You have a misunderstanding about what is meant by ‘participation’.

In Baptism, we became priests. A priest offers Sacrifice, but a priest may only Sacrifice what they have.

A Ministerial, Ordained priest is in persona Christi, he ‘becomes’ Christ so that he may offer Christ Himself.

We, the Common Priesthood, participate by offering ourselves at the same time that the Minsterial Priest offers Christ.

THAT is our participation, and it may occur in any language.

Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” goes into great depth on what Vatican II meant by “active participation”, he devoted an entire chapter to it. I would highly recommend that you pick up a copy and read it. It is an excellent look at the mind of the Church on the liturgy.

Basically, active particpation requires silence. We participate fully in the actio of the Mass when we listen attentively to the readings and the homily, and offer ourselves to God at the same time as the priest offers Christ.

Here is what Pope John Paul II said about particpation in an address to the US bishops (Oct, 1998)

So, no, you don’t have to sit a read a missal to participate. Just sitting there quietly offering yourselve wholeheartly to God is what is really required.

Brendan,

If HMC did not feel that the laity had too little participation, the NO (a) would never have been inspired by the Holy Spirit (or did the Holy Spirit stop inspiring the Church?), (b) would never have been promulgated, (c) would never have been tolerated by the Magisterium for so many years, and (d) would never have been used by any of our recent Popes.

If the God of the Israelites inspired David to write Psalms to be used in ancient liturgical worship and did not strike him down as he danced with joy before the Ark of the Covenant while women played lyres and tambourines and trumpets blasted, why would He suddenly and arbitrarily change and want His worshipers to worship Him by sitting as mute stones?

 

[Brendan]

Brendan,

If HMC did not feel that the laity had too little participation, the NO (a) would never have been inspired by the Holy Spirit (or did the Holy Spirit stop inspiring the Church?), (b) would never have been promulgated, (c) would never have been tolerated by the Magisterium for so many years, and (d) would never have been used by any of our recent Popes.

Note that both +John Paul II and +Benedict were refering to the N.O. Mass when they wrote about it.

As I mentioned above, these are how the men who were AT Vatican II described what they were thinking about when they wrote “full, active, conscience, particiapation”

So the above is what the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to do when it promulgated the N.O. Mass. Who is anybody to say that JP II is wrong in what he said.

The N.O. Mass, like any Divine Liturgy in the Church is not about doing or saying, it’s about giving ourselves, our hearts to God. As as Pope JPII says, that is best done in silence.

So the problem is not with the Popes and their words, perhaps you are not assisting at the N.O. Mass as it was intented when the Church promuglated it.

If the God of the Israelites inspired David to write Psalms to be used in ancient liturgical worship and did not strike him down as he danced with joy before the Ark of the Covenant while women played lyres and tambourines and trumpets blasted, why would He suddenly and arbitrarily change and want His worshipers to worship Him by sitting as mute stones?

Note that David danced with joy OUTSIDE of the Liturgy.

Gemma,

You are falling into an interesting trap. You think that the N.>O is the articulation of Vatican II. It is not.

Vatican II, as an ecumenical Council, applies to all the sui juirs Churches in the Church.

It applies equally to a OF Mass, and EF Mass, a Byzantine Divine Liturgy and a Chaldean Holy Quuram.

We are all called to partcipate fully, actively and Consciously at all of those. If you think that is is only possible at an OF Mass, then you need to get you concept of what ‘participation’ more in line with what the Holy Spirit inspired and what the Church promulgated.

 

[Brendan]

.

The Holy See saw fit to largely suppress the TLM for a time, so we never know what tomorrow will bring. It seems best to trust the Church to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and on that account to resolve to take what comes with obedience.

The Holy See never did. Certain local bishops did, but never the Holy See.

In fact, even right after Vatican II, certain diocese continued to celebrate the EF as their normative Mass, with full support from the Holy See.

So your statement is inaccurate.

 

[mozier]

Personally, I have found my participation in the NO to be more robotic than what I do at EF. I know all the responses and I just spit them out without even thinking.

Has anyone else been to a NO mass where the epistle reading is one of St. Paul’s letters, and it concludes with his words “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with You All!” ? And then the congregation mindlessly responds, “And Also With You.” ?

 

[Brendan]

Has anyone else been to a NO mass where the epistle reading is one of St. Paul’s letters, and it concludes with his words “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with You All!” ? And then the congregation mindlessly responds, “And Also With You.” ?

Yes, at a funeral Mass just last week :

 

[Brenda_V]

Has anyone else been to a NO mass where the epistle reading is one of St. Paul’s letters, and it concludes with his words “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with You All!” ? And then the congregation mindlessly responds, “And Also With You.” ?

Poor example of “robotic responses”! Let me give you an example of something similar in a pre-Vat. 2 world. How many of us 50 and up when going to a movie genuflected and crossed yourself before entering our seats? Or when entering a theater looked for the holy water with popcorn in hand? I can not say anything about robotic responses during the EF because I was only about 8 when Vat. 2 was promulgated so much of what would have become automatic - robotic in your parlance- had not been that ingrained in my psyche.

At least in the example you give above we are at Mass when we hear these words and respond to them, we are not anywhere near the Real Presence when you genuflect (or start to) when you are at a movie theater!

Another thing, “largely suppressed” does not mean “suppressed” everywhere, note the qualifier of “largely”! I can not though speak to the reality of the Vatican doing so, just that everywhere we went the NO was being said, whether it was in Turkey, Italy, Germany or France and what do you know? I as a pre-teen could follow along in all these foreign languages! I did though have a strong desire to know more about the parts of the Mass (no CCD on military installations at the time overseas, don’t know if that has changed).

Now having said all this, I am not one of the “people who do not like traditional Catholicism”. I love the prayers and traditions that make up said Catholicism, I am not a fan of the EF but on the other hand I am not an enemy of it either, if I had my way every Parish would be able to celebrate one Mass in the EF form and that one at the earliest Mass of the day so that those who wish to follow the Midnight or three hour fast can do so .

Brenda V.

 

[Brendan]

Another thing, “largely suppressed” does not mean “suppressed” everywhere, note the qualifier of “largely”! .

Where is the document that the Holy See issued “largely suppressing” the EF?

How, exactly was this suppression promulgated?

 

[Brenda_V]

Where is the document that the Holy See issued “largely suppressing” the EF?

How, exactly was this suppression promulgated?

I did say I didn’t know that - you have to ask the original person who said this not me, I was just pointing out how it could be. And truth be told the EF was “largely suppressed” by the powers that be, the Bishops if no one else.

More personal experience which does not account for much okay? I asked once why there were no Masses in Latin right now and I was told by someone I trusted that it was “because the Vatican wanted the people to give the new Mass a try, we are a stubborn people and loath to change our ways so we needed to give this a try before we fully rejected it and if we had an option there are enough who wouldn’t even try it just because they don’t like change! In time the old Mass will be allowed again.” Well, my humble experience has shown that to have happened, the new Mass is the more often celebrated one and the old Mass is being celebrated more with some parishes being exclusively such.

 

[Brendan]

I did say I didn’t know that - you have to ask the original person who said this not me, I was just pointing out how it could be. And truth be told the EF was “largely suppressed” by the powers that be, the Bishops if no one else…

I agree it was largely surpressed by certain bishops ( and thus the need for Summorum Pontificum to correct that error)

But not by the Holy See.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree it was largely surpressed by certain bishops ( and thus the need for Summorum Pontificum to correct that error)

But not by the Holy See.

I stand corrected.

Still, as John Paul II wrote in Vicesimus Quintus Annus, “In every diocese the bishop is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, and likewise the governor, promoter and guardian of the entire liturgical life of the Church entrusted to him”

In other words, while it is fine for the laity to ask Rome to clarify Vatican rules for their bishop, if the Holy See deems a bishop to have been obedient in the discharge of his duties in his diocese, I don’t think it correct for the laity to decide that their bishop is “in error”. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope guides his brother bishops. The Pope does not “write laws” which bind all the heirarcy to the pleasure of how the laity interpret those writings. That isn’t how the Church works.

 

[Brendan]

In other words, while it is fine for the laity to ask Rome to clarify Vatican rules for their bishop, if the Holy See deems a bishop to have been obedient in the discharge of his duties in his diocese, I don’t think it correct for the laity to decide that their bishop is “in error”. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope guides his brother bishops. The Pope does not “write laws” which bind all the heirarcy to the pleasure of how the laity interpret those writings. That isn’t how the Church works.

Actually, it IS very much the role of the laity to correct a bishop when they use their authority in ways that are harmful to the faithful, or discounts their spiritual needs.

And most especially when they act in ways contrary to the directives of the Holy See as the bishop may only act on what is entrusted to him by the Church, he may not change, subtract from, or add to it.

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually, it IS very much the role of the laity to correct a bishop when they use their authority in ways that are harmful to the faithful, or discounts their spiritual needs.

And most especially when they act in ways contrary to the directives of the Holy See as the bishop may only act on what is entrusted to him by the Church, he may not change, subtract from, or add to it.

It is within the role of the laity to ask the heirarchy for clarification, and to notify the Holy See, or in the case of a pastor, to notify the bishop, when the answers we get seem insufficient. We do not have to just sit down, shut up, and take what we get. I would even go so far as to say that it is a duty to ask for clarification, where the conduct of those who shepherd us is a scandal to us.

It is not the role of the laity to correct the heirarchy on matters of faith, morals, or liturgy, though. We do not have that authority.

 

[donmaximuso27]

It is within the role of the laity to ask the heirarchy for clarification, and to notify the Holy See, or in the case of a pastor, to notify the bishop, when the answers we get seem insufficient. We do not have to just sit down, shut up, and take what we get. I would even go so far as to say that it is a duty to ask for clarification, where the conduct of those who shepherd us is a scandal to us.

It is not the role of the laity to correct the heirarchy on matters of faith, morals, or liturgy, though. We do not have that authority.

I agree, but it is also the role of the laity to report any liturgical, theological, or any other abuse in the Church. This role is not in correcting the heirarchy, but more so protecting the Church and its faith and morals.

 

[ethelzguy]

I agree, but it is also the role of the laity to report any liturgical, theological, or any other abuse in the Church. This role is not in correcting the heirarchy, but more so protecting the Church and its faith and morals.

Fine.

But report it, then move on. If they don’t fix it to your liking, more griping isn’t going to change anything.

And, some people are NEVER satisfied. I know three or four women, who have been “members” of every parish within 40 miles of here. Six months here, a year there, and so on.

No matter where they go, they fixate on whatever little things that don’t suit them. The parishes around here are hardly “liberal” either.

Several years back, our parish did to the “streamers in the aisles” prior to the Gospel reading, while the deacon paraded the Lectionary down and back up the center aisle.

But, like gas, this too passed…Not everything always pleases us, but a little charity goes a long way.

 

[donmaximuso27]

Fine.

But report it, then move on. If they don’t fix it to your liking, more griping isn’t going to change anything.

And, some people are NEVER satisfied. I know three or four women, who have been “members” of every parish within 40 miles of here. Six months here, a year there, and so on.

No matter where they go, they fixate on whatever little things that don’t suit them. The parishes around here are hardly “liberal” either.

Several years back, our parish did to the “streamers in the aisles” prior to the Gospel reading, while the deacon paraded the Lectionary down and back up the center aisle.

But, like gas, this too passed…Not everything always pleases us, but a little charity goes a long way.

I agree. As a former Protestant, I know all too well the political cliques and the power they try to use within the congregation. As you said, it is important not to go crazy over every little detail. However, unfortunately, major abuses do occur, in which case they must not be ignored.

 

[Cat]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this idea of reporting liturgical abuses.

It seems to me that there is a good way and a bad way to do this.

I’ve been trying to decide what the “good way” would be.

It seems to me that several things would be a prelude to a “good way”:

1. Getting to know the priest(s) not just by greeting them after Mass every week, but as friends. Perhaps invite them for a meal, or bring them a treat on a regular basis. Take them golfing, or have them over for the Super Bowl party or take them to a concert.
2. Being involved actively with the parish in some kind of ministry. It doesn’t have to be a big ministry. Just helping clean the church, or get the flower gardens back in shape, or as a sacristan, or sitting at the Pro-Life table after Mass.
3. Supporting the parish financially to whatever extent you are able.

It seems to me that a person who does these three things will be in a really good position to approach the priest and speak up about a liturgical abuse. The priest won’t see you as a “threat” or a “complainer” because he will know you as a good friend and a faithful parishioner with a heart full of love. And as a friend of the priest and the parish, you will know that your motives are truly pure and loving, not bitter or self-serving.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t expect anyone to listen to us if we haven’t earned the right to be listened to.

Does this make sense?

 

[donmaximuso27]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this idea of reporting liturgical abuses.

It seems to me that there is a good way and a bad way to do this.

I’ve been trying to decide what the “good way” would be.

It seems to me that several things would be a prelude to a “good way”:

1. Getting to know the priest(s) not just by greeting them after Mass every week, but as friends. Perhaps invite them for a meal, or bring them a treat on a regular basis. Take them golfing, or have them over for the Super Bowl party or take them to a concert.
2. Being involved actively with the parish in some kind of ministry. It doesn’t have to be a big ministry. Just helping clean the church, or get the flower gardens back in shape, or as a sacristan, or sitting at the Pro-Life table after Mass.
3. Supporting the parish financially to whatever extent you are able.

It seems to me that a person who does these three things will be in a really good position to approach the priest and speak up about a liturgical abuse. The priest won’t see you as a “threat” or a “complainer” because he will know you as a good friend and a faithful parishioner with a heart full of love. And as a friend of the priest and the parish, you will know that your motives are truly pure and loving, not bitter or self-serving.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t expect anyone to listen to us if we haven’t earned the right to be listened to.

Does this make sense?

It sure helps. I especially like the idea of a parishioner becoming friends with a parish priest, rather then just knowing him through mass. Throughout the history of the Church, countless saints were well-known and well respected by entire towns and villages. In large parishes, it would help a great deal if the majority of parishioners came to know the priest well. This would strengthen respect, trust, and especially faith. It would definitely break down barriers in matters of abuses.

 

[ethelzguy]

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t expect anyone to listen to us if we haven’t earned the right to be listened to.

Does this make sense?

I agree with you 100% !! But duck, and be ready for “incoming”

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t expect anyone to listen to us if we haven’t earned the right to be listened to.Does this make sense?

I never thought of it this way, but this makes very good sense.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B