People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[brotherhrolf]

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

Hey, quit stealing my lines! I seem to be the “odd man out” around here.

Nobody is saying, Cat, that you can’t have your say. Indeed, it is your say which gives me all sorts of angst to deal with - precisely because I know that you have a right to your say. In fairness, however, if I can put myself in your shoes, surely you can put yourself in my shoes even if I stand in opposition to those who are my contemporaries and elders.

I have come to have a deep respect for Deacon Ed. He is my elder. He was in the seminary in NO when I was wet behind my ears in a Catholic boys high school in NO. He sees things from a different perspective than me. Those eight or ten years have obviously made a difference in our perspectives.

I can’t explain the difference. Those ten years made a big difference. The HMC I grew up in was one of the dialogue Mass, people singing and responding in Latin, and then the abrupt transistion to the NO. At age 17 when I graduated from high school, I, like so many of my classmates, was perfectly happy with the HMC under which we grew up. That was almost 40 years ago.

No one is asking Deacon Ed or Cat or anyone else to return to the practices of 40+ years ago. No one and certainly not me. But this irrational fear and loathing of the EF is every bit as unwarranted as the irrational fear and loathing of the OF.

Deacon Ed, I make no apologies that I was happy with the EF in the 60s. As I have said, I didn’t have long hair; didn’t protest the VietNam War and I enlisted. There were a whole bunch of us in New Orleans at that time who were short haired conservatives who followed in their father’s footsteps.

Cat, I make no apaologies that I was happy with the EF. My father was a protestant and did not begin accompanying us as a family to Mass until 1969. ( My Daddy was the one who got me up and brought me to 6am Mass when I was a boy).

Both of you, IMHO are missing the bigger picture. Deacon Ed, we are French? We are Acadienne? I have way too much Irish mixed in to know that my ancestors had to attend Mass along the hedge rows and were dumped on the levees in NO in high summer in 1847.

I ask forgiveness of both of you. Not only was I happy with the EF in 1969, I tend to see things in light of my family’s ethnic and historical experience. It grieves me that my family’s experience is held in such disdain. It grieves me even further that I, as an anthropologist, am ridiculed/disdained for my own deeply held beliefs. Yes, I am engaging in hyperbole but would ask the two of you to consider your own actions in light of hyperbole.

The sword cuts both ways.

 

[EasterJoy]

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?

This seems reasonable. I would think that (2) and (3) describe anyone who considers themselves a part of a parish. As far as (1), there are some priests that aren’t going to be a good match socially, and there is nothing wrong with that. If everyone was trying to be his best friend, the poor guy could get loved to death!

If, however, you let them know that you support them in their priesthood and are happy to be of help when they need it, if you take the trouble to remember their birthday and ordination anniversary, as you might for an uncle or other extended family member, for instance, this will make a big difference.

I’ve heard it said that a man who marries has one family; a priest, a hundred. I would hope that describes an awful lot of priests, but too often it doesn’t. At any rate, should the time come to have any conversations which might require charity on both sides, it is well to have cultivated some natural fraternal affection, for its own sake.

This, by the way, is also a traditional way to treat a priest. Some of them acted (or were treated) like they were kings or paragons who could do no wrong in the old days, but in our family lore, most are remembered as family, with both gifts and faults remembered in fond affection. When there were problems, the priest was approached with the respect due a leader in the family, too.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No one is asking Deacon Ed or Cat or anyone else to return to the practices of 40+ years ago. No one and certainly not me.

Here we totally agree. Nor are we asking that you surrender your preference for the Latin Mass. What we are all saying, both sides is that each has its place. All we have to do is respect the preference of the others. I think this is what Cat is also saying. What raises the few hairs I have on my head is people saying that it is not as good, is not as this, is not as that, etc. I have been saying over and over, people, this is the mass we are talking about.

But this irrational fear and loathing of the EF is every bit as unwarranted as the irrational fear and loathing of the OF.

I do not know of anyone having this fear and loathing. Maybe we are all proceeding on perception (erroneous) instead of fact.

Deacon Ed, I make no apologies that I was happy with the EF in the 60s. As I have said, I didn’t have long hair; didn’t protest the VietNam War and I enlisted. There were a whole bunch of us in New Orleans at that time who were short haired conservatives who followed in their father’s footsteps.

No apologies needed, on the contrary, respect given for what you did. And I do mean that sincerely.

Cat, I make no apaologies that I was happy with the EF. My father was a protestant and did not begin accompanying us as a family to Mass until 1969. ( My Daddy was the one who got me up and brought me to 6am Mass when I was a boy).

I will be so bold here as to presume to answer for Cat. No apologies expected nor required.

Both of you, IMHO are missing the bigger picture. Deacon Ed, we are French? We are Acadienne? I have way too much Irish mixed in to know that my ancestors had to attend Mass along the hedge rows and were dumped on the levees in NO in high summer in 1847.

I ask forgiveness of both of you. Not only was I happy with the EF in 1969, I tend to see things in light of my family’s ethnic and historical experience. It grieves me that my family’s experience is held in such disdain. It grieves me even further that I, as an anthropologist, am ridiculed/disdained for my own deeply held beliefs. Yes, I am engaging in hyperbole but would ask the two of you to consider your own actions in light of hyperbole.
The sword cuts both ways.

Again, no forgiveness is necessary, as your preference is not wrong, it is simply that, your preference… And a good one. You and I have odd mixtures. You Cajun and Irish. Me, Polish and Cajun. Lordy, what a mix. maybe thats why we have been talking at instead of talking to one another. I think we are in agreement that our preferences are each good and correct, for each of us. None of us is in doctrinal error. None of us condemn the other. We just have different preferences, both of which are allowed in Holy Mother Church. Thanks be to God
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Brendan]

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.

No, we do not need to just ask for clarifications. We may lodge complaints. And lodge complaints, and lodge even more complaints until we get a liturgy that is done in the way that Rome promugated it.

We can use, as our model, the widow petitioning the unjust judge. For if Christ used that model in petitioning God Himself, can the hierarchy of the Church be above it?

Here is RS on the subject

In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

We have to do all that is within our power to correct the abuses. If that means constantly reminding the person making the error, that is well within the right and duty laid forth by Rome.

It must be done it truth and charity, but it must be done, and with whatever zeal is within our power.

 

[Salonika]

Think each person who fits your description does it for their own reason, so there is likely to be many reasons, perhaps almost as many reasons as those who contribute.

My usual reasons for frequenting sub-forums, whether I am sympathetic to their topic or nor, include to find out more about the topic and the range of views about it. I like it when a wide range of views are expressed and there is discussion about them, as long as this does not degenerate into attacking people, “bashing” those who hold particular views or telling people they do not have the right to hold the views they do. Sometimes I frequent threads to see if anyone thinks the same way as I do about the topic!!!

 

[GemmaRose]

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.
Not me. Never said JPII was wrong.

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.
Interior silence does not necessarily correspond to exterior silence, nor even to our exterior words or actions.

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.
Somehow, I think it unlikely that of the thousands (daily for @ 35 years) of Masses I have assisted at in my 53 years that none of them were “intented” [sic] as the Church promulgated them.

Note that David danced with joy OUTSIDE of the Liturgy.
AND IN FRONT OF THE VERY PRESENCE OF GOD.

Gemma,

You are falling into an interesting trap. You think that the N.>O is the articulation of Vatican II. It is not.
Personally, I prefer when people do not automatically assume to know what I am thinking and mistake their notions for my alleged error.

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,
Never said “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.
As far as the meaning of “participation,” I would be interested in hearing your response to Cat’s post, which I will reproduce for you below.

Brendan;3748388:

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.

But this isn’t what the Documents of Vat II say at all.

In the chapter on Sacred Liturgy, 30. “To develop active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons, hymns, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed.”

So…do you discount the Vat II Council?

If so, how can you justify discounting it?

This is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with some of the Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists”–they make claims that Vat II wasn’t valid. I just don’t get this at all. If you are not one of those people, I’m glad!

 

[Cat]

brotherhrolf, from the descriptions that you have given of your involvement over the years with your parishes, it seems to me that you, of all people, have definitely “earned the right” to be listened to!

You are active and enthusiastic in your involvement with church music. I remember that you have described other various involvements with your parish.

This is what I’m getting at–someone like you is just what a priest needs! And if you should spot an abuse, the priest will probably not be offended at all if you point it out, because he knows that you love your Church, you love the priests, and you have a perfectly pure heart and noble motives.

I think what must be awful for a priest is to have someone approach him that he has never even seen, let alone met, and this stranger says, “Father, there is an abuse in your Mass.”

How does Father handle something like that? “I’m sorry, sir or madam, are you a member of this parish? How have I missed seeing you all these years?”

And then the person says, “It doesn’t matter if I’m a member or not–an abuse is serious! Fix it!”

Of course the person is correct and of course the person has every right to a “proper Mass,” but their “observation” about the abuse would sound so much better coming from someone like good brotherhrolf who is faithful, loyal, and has the best interests of everyone, including the Lord Jesus, at heart!

I hope this makes sense. I’m not saying that we have to be buddy-buddy with a priest before we can speak up. But I think being friends with the priest would sure help to keep the peace and get the goal accomplished.

 

[ethelzguy]

The Mass we attended today was interesting to say the least. It was the “guitar” Mass at a neighboring parish. We attended with some of our grandchildren.

The priest was a young, visiting priest who was very obviously into “old school” Mass.

He chanted many prayers, and said the EP#1. His traditional chant made for a bizarre mix with the music of that particular Mass. My wife did allow afterwards that the hair on the back of her neck stood up when the priest would chant prayer.

He had a fantastic singing voice. He was actually better than the choir

 

[consumedconvert]

The Mass we attended today was interesting to say the least. It was the “guitar” Mass at a neighboring parish. We attended with some of our grandchildren.

The priest was a young, visiting priest who was very obviously into “old school” Mass.

He chanted many prayers, and said the EP#1. His traditional chant made for a bizarre mix with the music of that particular Mass. My wife did allow afterwards that the hair on the back of her neck stood up when the priest would chant prayer.

He had a fantastic singing voice. He was actually better than the choir

Interesting. We have a Priest from our sister diocese in Africa in our parish–getting his doctorate in education. He was the Vicar General of his diocese in Africa and is very young–late thirties, I think! An orthodox fellow, and an excellent homilist.

He also has an excellent singing voice, and you can tell he loves to sing. He usually finds a way to sing a little in his homilies! He told my wife’s RCIA class that from the time he was a little chiled he wanted to become a Priest so he could sing the Mass. Sometimes he does chant Mass, and I love it when he does. It sends chills up my spine to realize how very “adaptive” orthodox Catholicism is! Maybe that’s not the right word. What I mean is, it’s a blessing to see that people from different cultures can bring their own gifts to the Mass–like an African Priest’s joy and love of singing!

 

[ethelzguy]

Interesting. We have a Priest from our sister diocese in Africa in our parish–getting his doctorate in education. He was the Vicar General of his diocese in Africa and is very young–late thirties, I think! An orthodox fellow, and an excellent homilist.

He also has an excellent singing voice, and you can tell he loves to sing. He usually finds a way to sing a little in his homilies! He told my wife’s RCIA class that from the time he was a little chiled he wanted to become a Priest so he could sing the Mass. Sometimes he does chant Mass, and I love it when he does. It sends chills up my spine to realize how very “adaptive” orthodox Catholicism is! Maybe that’s not the right word. What I mean is, it’s a blessing to see that people from different cultures can bring their own gifts to the Mass–like an African Priest’s joy and love of singing!

So, if my wife was…um, distracted by his singing voice…could that be construed as sin caused by chant?

 

[consumedconvert]

So, if my wife was…um, distracted by his singing voice…could that be construed as sin caused by chant?

Who said being distracted in Mass was a sin?

If so, my son is the near occasion of sin every time we go to Mass…

 

[Dauphin]

Who said being distracted in Mass was a sin?

If so, my son is the near occasion of sin every time we go to Mass…

My examination of conscience names “willful distraction” during Mass as a sin.

 

[consumedconvert]

My examination of conscience names “willful distraction” during Mass as a sin.

I hardly think wrestling my son is willful–at least not on my part.

 

[japhy]

My examination of conscience names “willful distraction” during Mass as a sin.

Then there shouldn’t be so many statues, icons, stained glass windows, etc. to catch our attention!

 

[EasterJoy]

No, we do not need to just ask for clarifications. We may lodge complaints. And lodge complaints, and lodge even more complaints until we get a liturgy that is done in the way that Rome promugated it.

We can use, as our model, the widow petitioning the unjust judge. For if Christ used that model in petitioning God Himself, can the hierarchy of the Church be above it?

Here is RS on the subject

We have to do all that is within our power to correct the abuses. If that means constantly reminding the person making the error, that is well within the right and duty laid forth by Rome.

It must be done it truth and charity, but it must be done, and with whatever zeal is within our power.

I don’t know what “RS on the subject” means.

By using the word “clarification”, I meant to lodge complaints in such a way as to make it clear that I am open for correction, too, if need be. I would not advocate lodging a complaint in such a way as to imply to those who have teaching authority over me that I think it is impossible that I am the one who is in error about what has been “laid forth by Rome.” Everyone gets to eat humble pie once in awhile, but it tastes the best if you serve yourself.

Even if I were right every time–some of us are annoyingly close to perfect when it comes to stuff like this–there would get to be a point where they would start to dread seeing my return address on the envelope. I think life is hard enough for our shepherds as it is! Far better that their humble pie is served with sugar instead of vinegar, too!

 

[elts1956]

Then there shouldn’t be so many statues, icons, stained glass windows, etc. to catch our attention!

Okay japhy. What is willful distraction? Wouldn’t it be the “willingness” to let those statues, icons etc. distract us? Or the very inviting possiblity of day dreaming etc.

 

[nice2000]

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.
.

Hi Brenda,

My Mother was raised Catholic. (1st thru 12th grade) She is 72 yrs. old. She once told me that every since she was a small child and everytime when she passes a Catholic church or statue of the Virgin Mary, she always has this urge to do the sign of the cross.

I always wondered why she had an automatic genuflection…now I see other elderly Catholics have the same automatic robotic genuflection.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know what “RS on the subject” means.

‘RS’ is shorthand for the document Redemptionis Sacramentum

 

[brotherhrolf]

Hi Brenda,

My Mother was raised Catholic. (1st thru 12th grade) She is 72 yrs. old. She once told me that every since she was a small child and everytime when she passes a Catholic church or statue of the Virgin Mary, she always has this urge to do the sign of the cross.

I always wondered why she had an automatic genuflection…now I see other elderly Catholics have the same automatic robotic genuflection.

My friend, come down to Catholic New Orleans. I’m not 72, I’m 56 and I can guarantee you that if you ride public transportation with me you will find Catholics who make the sign of the cross passing in front of the Holy Eucharist inside that Catholic Church. No it is not an automatic thing nor is it restricted to the “elderly” nor, more importantly, is it looked at askance.

I took the bus in high school and college almost 40 years ago. Want me to tell you which churches I passed on my way home? Our Lady of Guadalupe, St. Joseph’s, St. Christopher’s. Automatic robotic, indeed.

 

[Brenda_V]

My friend, come down to Catholic New Orleans. I’m not 72, I’m 56 and I can guarantee you that if you ride public transportation with me you will find Catholics who make the sign of the cross passing in front of the Holy Eucharist inside that Catholic Church. No it is not an automatic thing nor is it restricted to the “elderly” nor, more importantly, is it looked at askance.

I took the bus in high school and college almost 40 years ago. Want me to tell you which churches I passed on my way home? Our Lady of Guadalupe, St. Joseph’s, St. Christopher’s. Automatic robotic, indeed.

Thanks Brotherhrolf - that is not an “automatic robotic” type behavior I was referring to. I do this when passing some Catholic churches - mostly I am driving it there is too much traffic for me to take both hands off the steering wheel but it is not the “automatic robotic” response I was thinking of.

Now, do tell, when you go to the movies, or for that matter any venue where there is a row of seats, do you have to work hard not to genuflect? Both in moving into the seats and leaving? I know I do!

Brenda V.