Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[clem456]

I’ve ignored your remarks about them because I’m not a mendicant and neither are all the laity. Nor are diocesan priests. It’s strange what’s happened. The laity have been deprived of beauty, solemnity, culture and pious, ancient prayers, for something made up recently, by a committee or added by ‘liturgical experts’. What’s traditional about that? This is minimalism carried too far. It’s experimentation.

Not something you’d expect in the central rite of a religion that says it is THE religion, founded by THE god, who incarnated as a man and was killed as a blood sacrifice.

So are you Catholic or are you not? I see you isolating yourself from Church authority and other Catholics here, and that is definitely not part of the Catholic gameplan. Come on in the water is warm.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I am reading a wonderful book right now that talks about some of the roots in the New Liturgical Movement that influenced the liturgical changes from 1948 onwards. The author mentions two very different principles that we see first in works of people like Louis Bouyer, which are later condemend by Pius XII, but which keep coming back and we see all the time now.

The first: corruption theory. The Mass was corrupted over time, we should go back to the ancient forms. This usually means simplified uses of religious traditions, or before St. Gregory. The medievals added bad things, the baroques even worse, the 19th century was even worse than that.

The second: pastoral liturgy (the liturgy should be adapted to the people, for didactic purposes especially, rather than what the holy and erudite Dom Gueranger wished to do, which was elevate the people to the liturgy by teaching rather than bring the liturgy down to the commonly understandable).

What this author emphasizes (and he makes a great case) is that these principles can be used to justify anything! And it’s no coincidence that their selective use is nearly always in the service of modernist-influenced ideas.

Think about it, relative to the original point of this thread. Ancient idea of communion in the hand, and standing? Ok, that’s good, we can find sources for that. Ancient ideas of fasting? That’s much better attested historically, but doesn’t suit our agenda, so no, let’s actually reduce the fast.

This author also points out examples in the 1951 new Easter Vigil (which was a stepping stone to the OF Easter Vigil). The time was changed, which is fine (and makes great sense). But the rest was not “restored.” To restore the ancient Pannuchia vigil service, they would have expanded the service to include over 30 readings, chanting for 12 hours, baptisms and ordinations, and it would be amazing. But what they “restored” were prayers over the candle that were complely newly composed. They “restored” by eliminating some of the prayers for blessing. They “restored” by adding the new ceremony of giving everyone a candle (in ancient times this would be ridiculous since wax was so precious). Rather than restore the readings, they “restored” by reducing the readings even further!

So anyone informed about the history has every right to be very skeptical when things like Cistercians around the altar, Franciscans and lack of Gregorian chant, or St. Cyril and CITH are invoked.

The LifeTeen kids around the altar are not reading St. Bernard. The folk hymn enthusiasts are not pushing Franciscan ideals of poverty. The CITH folks are not pushing an Eastern understanding of fasting and abstinence.

I can intellectualy acknowledge all those various practices as legitimate in context while seeing quite easily that they are invoked selectively for a misguided (at least) agenda.

 

[clem456]

I am reading a wonderful book right now that talks about some of the roots in the New Liturgical Movement that influenced the liturgical changes from 1948 onwards. The author mentions two very different principles that we see first in works of people like Louis Bouyer, which are later condemend by Pius XII, but which keep coming back and we see all the time now.

The first: corruption theory. The Mass was corrupted over time, we should go back to the ancient forms. This usually means simplified uses of religious traditions, or before St. Gregory. The medievals added bad things, the baroques even worse, the 19th century was even worse than that.

The second: pastoral liturgy (the liturgy should be adapted to the people, for didactic purposes especially, rather than what the holy and erudite Dom Gueranger wished to do, which was elevate the people to the liturgy by teaching rather than bring the liturgy down to the commonly understandable).

What this author emphasizes (and he makes a great case) is that these principles can be used to justify anything! And it’s no coincidence that their selective use is nearly always in the service of modernist-influenced ideas.

Think about it, relative to the original point of this thread. Ancient idea of communion in the hand, and standing? Ok, that’s good, we can find sources for that. Ancient ideas of fasting? That’s much better attested historically, but doesn’t suit our agenda, so no, let’s actually reduce the fast.

This author also points out examples in the 1951 new Easter Vigil (which was a stepping stone to the OF Easter Vigil). The time was changed, which is fine (and makes great sense). But the rest was not “restored.” To restore the ancient Pannuchia vigil service, they would have expanded the service to include over 30 readings, chanting for 12 hours, baptisms and ordinations, and it would be amazing. But what they “restored” were prayers over the candle that were complely newly composed. They “restored” by eliminating some of the prayers for blessing. They “restored” by adding the new ceremony of giving everyone a candle (in ancient times this would be ridiculous since wax was so precious). Rather than restore the readings, they “restored” by reducing the readings even further!

So anyone informed about the history has every right to be very skeptical when things like Cistercians around the altar, Franciscans and lack of Gregorian chant, or St. Cyril and CITH are invoked.

The LifeTeen kids around the altar are not reading St. Bernard. The folk hymn enthusiasts are not pushing Franciscan ideals of poverty. The CITH folks are not pushing an Eastern understanding of fasting and abstinence.

I can intellectualy acknowledge all those various practices as legitimate in context while seeing quite easily that they are invoked selectively for a misguided (at least) agenda.

You can try til your head spins around, you’ll never have a satisfactorily traditional Mass to make everyone happy. It’s pointless, that’s why we have Church authority, so we don’t debate these things to absurdity.

And you can also see agendas in anything in life. Maybe try 1.) accepting what the Church teaches and practices. And 2.) try not denigrating forms and practices that don’t suit your parituclar tastes. This isn’t real complicated stuff. It is a matter of willfullness and pride though, and that’s the hard part.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’ve ignored your remarks about them because I’m not a mendicant and neither are all the laity. Nor are diocesan priests.

Indeed. But we’re not mendicants, we’re secular laity. Mendicant spirituality could and should influence, but it, too, has it’s context. It is a religious order. I am not part of a religious order, so my context is vastly different from, say, Brother JR’s.

Neither have most Popes been a part of religious orders, but they’ve seen fit to incorporate concepts and elements of the religious into the secular realm unilaterally.

I mean, if you guys don’t want unilateral influence from religious in the secular laity then feel free to abandon the Catherine of Sienna, the Rosary, St. Pius X, St. Pius V, the Tabernacle in the middle of the sanctuary, and Tridentine Rite

Also, I’d like to add that I wouldn’t attend Mass in an outhouse. I know you were using an extreme example to try to make a point, but I think it was too extreme and shows an underlying attitude that strikes those who hold to traditional Catholic practices as being part of the problem in the Church today. Our Lord deserves better than the crapper. Mass is more than just form, matter, intent. That’s what’s required for a valid consecration. Mass is more than that, or we’d simply have a quick prayer of consecration and be done with it. I find support for this view in the fact that in order to meet your obligation to attend Mass, you have to be there before the Gospel is proclaimed. Of course I am aware of extreme situations (battlefields, prisons, etc), but those are exceptions and we shouldn’t look to them to understand what a Mass is and what should be required of a Mass.

• PAX

Our Lord deserves more than the crapper, but remember; He was born in a manger.

 

[TimothyH]

The action of Christ offering Himself in the Holy Sacrifice, through the person of the priest, pours out grace on everyone at Mass and on the whole world, even people who don’t receive Holy Communion. So the liturgical actions call down grace that wouldn’t be present at say, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. So saying the Mass is a source of grace is very important in this sense.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Also, from the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent:

Tim,
I believe you are “rite” on there. So it matters not the form, it could be OF, EF, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, they all confect the Eucharist which is the source of grace. No form has more grace with in it than any other.

You will not find a document/source from the Church saying this because it is a pretty (pardon my French) stupid question to be asking.

To all who replied in charity and peace, thank you.

Rich C. your citations are very interesting and have edumacated me. Thank you.

-Tim-

 

[newyorkcatholic]

You can try til your head spins around, you’ll never have a satisfactorily traditional Mass to make everyone happy. It’s pointless, that’s why we have Church authority, so we don’t debate these things to absurdity.

And you can also see agendas in anything in life. Maybe try 1.) accepting what the Church teaches and practices. And 2.) try not denigrating forms and practices that don’t suit your parituclar tastes. This isn’t real complicated stuff. It is a matter of willfullness and pride though, and that’s the hard part.

Of course no one will every be happy. But if modernists are unhappy and those who are not afraid to embrace all traditional Catholic teachings are happy, that seems like a good solution to me. What a crazy idea, to change the Church’s rituals to make liberals happy. The liberals have to change.

Yes, we do have authority, and I follow that authority. I go to the Pius XII Holy Week because that’s the only thing allowed (other than the NO) in the Latin Rite. But I have a brain, and I know it’s really a stepping stone towards the NO. Every change since 1948 was based in a culture of open discussion of revising the liturgy – I am taking advantage of this very modern liberal Catholic idea, you could say, to express myself and support actual (true, fact based, not modernist) restoration of the liturgy.

If we lived 500 years ago I would not be allowed to discuss the liturgy so openly, but guess what: I wouldn’t need to.

And don’t worry: I don’t denigrate forms that don’t suit my tastes. But I call it when I see it, and if I see that changes were made even with good intentions but had bad results or were based on faulty ideas, I’m free to recognize this, and to share this, and to pray things are improved.

Think about it, really. Why would the Church have come up with a new Mass in the first place? Why was the breviary changed? Why the recent new translation into English? Why have liturgical comissions? Because all this stuff is open for discussion now, and although I wish it never was opened up to begin with in this way, it has been and I want to fight for the good.

If everyone thought like you in the past, we never would have had any of this, everyone would have politely been quite and accepted the traditional Mass even if they were closeted vernacularists or antiquarianists, and that would be awesome. That’s not the world we live in anymore.

 

[Melchior_1]

So anyone informed about the history has every right to be very skeptical when things like Cistercians around the altar, Franciscans and lack of Gregorian chant, or St. Cyril and CITH are invoked.

This also doesn’t mean you should automatically throw out what Franciscans and the like say when they speak of what they have done, and what they currently do.

Regarding Life Teen, they were told to stop doing that and they did. That’s more obedience than a few Catholic groups out there

 

[newyorkcatholic]

This also doesn’t mean you should automatically throw out what Franciscans and the like say when they speak of what they have done, and what they currently do.

Regarding Life Teen, they were told to stop doing that and they did. That’s more obedience than a few Catholic groups out there

You shouldn’t throw it out, I agree. I hope I haven’t given the impression I would want to do that. But people with a liberal agenda do, selectively, refer to religious traditions, and we must be careful.

Regarding LifeTeen, unfortunately they haven’t been fully obedient. And that’s not the only problem with them. Read about what happened to their founders. It’s pretty rotten to the core.

 

[clem456]

Of course no one will every be happy. But if modernists are unhappy and those who are not afraid to embrace all traditional Catholic teachings are happy, that seems like a good solution to me. What a crazy idea, to change the Church’s rituals to make liberals happy. The liberals have to change.

Yes, we do have authority, and I follow that authority. I go to the Pius XII Holy Week because that’s the only thing allowed (other than the NO) in the Latin Rite. But I have a brain, and I know it’s really a stepping stone towards the NO. Every change since 1948 was based in a culture of open discussion of revising the liturgy – I am taking advantage of this very modern liberal Catholic idea, you could say, to express myself and support actual (true, fact based, not modernist) restoration of the liturgy.

If we lived 500 years ago I would not be allowed to discuss the liturgy so openly, but guess what: I wouldn’t need to.

And don’t worry: I don’t denigrate forms that don’t suit my tastes. But I call it when I see it, and if I see that changes were made even with good intentions but had bad results or were based on faulty ideas, I’m free to recognize this, and to share this, and to pray things are improved.

Think about it, really. Why would the Church have come up with a new Mass in the first place? Why was the breviary changed? Why the recent new translation into English? Why have liturgical comissions? Because all this stuff is open for discussion now, and although I wish it never was opened up to begin with in this way, it has been and I want to fight for the good.

If everyone thought like you in the past, we never would have had any of this, everyone would have politely been quite and accepted the traditional Mass even if they were closeted vernacularists or antiquarianists, and that would be awesome. That’s not the world we live in anymore.

Through all the mess and discussion you are decrying, the Church stands firm on doctrine based on Jesus Christ himself, Scripture, and solid authoritative Church teaching. Things get way off track when accepted Mass forms, languages, music, (geez here I go again) are seen by other Catholics as inferior or less gracious or some other absoultely absurd thing. Who needs persecution when so-called Catholics persecute from within???

These liberals you fear: people will abuse things from all angles possible, forevermore. Most everybody does it,not just “liberals”. That doesn’t mean the millions of Catholics attending Masses distasteful to you have some agenda. Geez

 

[Melchior_1]

You shouldn’t throw it out, I agree. I hope I haven’t given the impression I would want to do that. But people with a liberal agenda do, selectively, refer to religious traditions, and we must be careful.

Very much agreed, and I assure you I’m equally vocal when I run into those folks

Regarding LifeTeen, unfortunately they haven’t been fully obedient. And that’s not the only problem with them. Read about what happened to their founders. It’s pretty rotten to the core.

The official statement came from Life Teen telling parishes to cease the action. Sadly, Life Teen doesn’t have the resources to personally send an ambassador over to parishes who haven’t stopped.

Regarding the founder of Life Teen and “those issues” he had, Life teen distanced themselves from him a long time ago. As in well before his excommunication. Those that run the organization are fully obedient to the Holy See.

Of course, I’m assuming that you have an issue with the Legion of Christ too, sense their founder had “some issues”.

Oh, and you’ve also called me “rotten to the core”, seeing how I’ve spent nine years volunteering at a Life Teen program. You’ve also called me everything you have thought of them and their ministry.

Without sidetracking the thread, PM me if you’re actually interested in what the Life Teen program does lately, and specifically if you want to know how I bring mendicant spirituality and teach orthodox Catholicism to high school kids and young adults who are dealing with today’s issues.

Thanks a bundle

 

[TimothyH]

This isn’t a two-way street that can be labeled as an argument between liberal and traditional or whatever. It’s one group of Catholics impugning the worship practices of other Catholics at valid Masses. No one is returning that favor here by running down the Latin Mass or EF or whatever. Catholics having to defend the Mass from other Catholics. It’s absurd.

Some of you would have a brain meltdown if you followed me to the hospital/nursing home this Sunday to do EMHC visits. I have given communion in the hand, on the tongue, between the tubes with the applesauce running down the chin, to all sorts of people. Drug addicts going to prison on Monday morning, people who can’t speak or respond all they can do is open their mouth and take a tiny piece of host (yes we break the host for these people), people taking their very last communion on this earth who ask me questions about divorce and mortal sin…people who I have no idea when they last went to confession, but they are Catholics who asked for communion. There is no decorum, no privacy, no signs of reverence like you would see at Mass, but there is reverence and respect. Does a 90 year old woman who has forgotten her name and where she is receive the same grace you do at your High Mass? I wouldn’t want to put myself in the driver’s seat for that judgement, I’ll leave that to someone else.

Thank you for this sobering reminder.

-Tim-

 

[wasserfall]

Of course, I’m assuming that you have an issue with the Legion of Christ too, sense their founder had “some issues”.

I can’t speak for NewYorkCatholic, but yes the Legion should have been (and should be) suppressed.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Of course, I’m assuming that you have an issue with the Legion of Christ too, sense their founder had “some issues”.

Oh, and you’ve also called me “rotten to the core”, seeing how I’ve spent nine years volunteering at a Life Teen program. You’ve also called me everything you have thought of them and their ministry.

Thanks a bundle

1. I do have a problem with the Legion of Christ. The issues with the founder’s life are so awful, they shouldn’t be allowed to reform. No one will ask me, but if someone did, I’d say disband the whole Legion, help every priest find somewhere else, and ban all Legionary leadership (the highest leaders) from holding any positions of leadership in any future placement.
2. I definitely haven’t called you rotten to the core! I question LifeTeen’s continued existence just as I question the Legion, but I have met Legionary priests who seem like great men and I have no reason to think you aren’t a great and holy Catholic. I just disagree with your view of LifeTeen … no matter how they reform or what good they do, the problems are enough in my view to scrap it. Like gathering around the altar … I wonder why it ever got to the point where they needed to be told to stop … they should never have tried that.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Through all the mess and discussion you are decrying, the Church stands firm on doctrine based on Jesus Christ himself, Scripture, and solid authoritative Church teaching. Things get way off track when accepted Mass forms, languages, music, (geez here I go again) are seen by other Catholics as inferior or less gracious or some other absoultely absurd thing. Who needs persecution when so-called Catholics persecute from within???

These liberals you fear: people will abuse things from all angles possible, forevermore. Most everybody does it,not just “liberals”. That doesn’t mean the millions of Catholics attending Masses distasteful to you have some agenda. Geez

The Church is firm essentially. But Church leaders don’t always stay firm. Look at Church law on even the New mass and new rubrics, and watch Cardinal Shoenbern’s cowboy/western Mass (can be seen on youtube). Or watch the LA diocese RE conference from a few years ago when Cdl Mahoney was in charge. Things don’t get off track when Catholics politely but firmly discuss problems with changes in the Church. Things get off track when the Church leaders make bad decisions.

I am really supposed to believe everything is fine except for some local abuses by the occasional rogue priest, when Mahoney and Shoenbern are cardinals and do what they do, in full view of the world? Really, what is my offense. I might speak harshly sometimes, but I have tremendous respect for the Church and the Holy Father … what Cdls like Shoenbern do is like spitting on liturgical law. But people like me are the problem?

This is my problem, not the regular Catholic. I actually thing the regular Catholic (who stayed in the Church) would probably sympathize a lot more with the traditional movement except that they are never going to hear about the changes from most bishops and priests.

Many of the informed Catholics who did understand the changes either (1) wanted them for the wrong reasons (modernism, pastoral liturgy, de-emphasize the Real Presence or the Sacrifice) or (2) didn’t want them and left the Church (3) suffered quietly but are old or dead by now, many of them, and kept quiet because they felt they should.

 

[JReducation]

That’s another theme: “The exception being touted as the rule”.

I reply, I post this:
youtube.com/results?search_query=mass+IX

That’s what we want.

If a Catholic don’t get that that (Gregorian Chant) is better than “On Eagle’s Wings”, then there is no point in arguing further. Again, the legal argument is used:* “It is legal, so that’s enough justification for it to be done anywhere, at any time, in any place”.*

The other argument is relativism: “Guitar music can be just as reverent as chant”. So too could a mouth organ. May those who say such, suffer such, for years.

The changes made to our rites would be laughable, if I weren’t Catholic.You believe your god is in that little gold box or in that piece of bread, and you start letting lay people handle it? Smart move. Not.

You’re right, I would, since I think the priest should be taking Holy Communion to those people

You are comparing apples and oranges. Taking Holy Communion to someone is not the same as a Mass.

It appears you have made a judgement or you wouldn’t have made this post. Rhetorical questions contain the answer, after all.

• PAX

ETA: I forgot to include Deacons as a minister of Holy Communion to shut-ins.

Ha ha, this is actually getting kinda funny. Honestly, this forum is about as un-traditional as a kazoo! One by one, out come the old stand-bys. You’ll be quoting St. Cyril, next.

Let’s see: you’re a Roman church, making an offering to your mighty god, who let himself be killed to pay off a debt for you. So you decide to improve your rite of propitiation, thanksgiving and adoration by getting rid of the sacred language, dumping the music and letting laity in plain clothes into the sacred area, to a folk music accompaniment, to handle the sacred bread.

I invite anyone who’s actually interested in traditionalism who’re reading this thread to seek out the Latin Mass Society or Una Voce Society in your area and go to traditional Latin masses for about 3 months. See what happens. Do a bit of reading first and don’t expect it to be comprehensible immediately.

I’ve ignored your remarks about them because I’m not a mendicant and neither are all the laity. Nor are diocesan priests. It’s strange what’s happened. The laity have been deprived of beauty, solemnity, culture and pious, ancient prayers, for something made up recently, by a committee or added by ‘liturgical experts’. What’s traditional about that? This is minimalism carried too far. It’s experimentation.

Not something you’d expect in the central rite of a religion that says it is THE religion, founded by THE god, who incarnated as a man and was killed as a blood sacrifice.

You need to calm down. No one is telling you that you have to become a mendicant. Besides, any mendicant superior who saw your posts on here, would not take you, too much anger. We don’t deal in anger. We deal in interior silence.

What is being said to you is that one can’t paint with too broad a brush when there is a significant sector of the population that does precisely what one finds offensive. Take for example the Franciscans. The Franciscans have been around for 800+ years and have made more contributions to the Church than we will ever know. On a bad vocation day, the Franciscans have 1.7 million friars, sisters and nuns. That’s 17% of the Catholic population. Not an insignificant number and certainly not a new number. Over the last 800 years, there have been period with more than that. St. Maximilian Kolbe was superior of a single house that had 800 friars.

For this sector of the Catholic population, Gregorian chant is a novelty. We were introduced to it in the 1970s. Those who could sing it, liked it. The point is that if a group that large and that influential in the Church was allowed to ban Gregorian chant and replace it with hymns and songs or with plainchant, then you can’t say that the latter is bad and the former is good. You can say that you prefer the Gregorian Chant over the other hymns and songs.

Just because a group is a minority, one cannot write it off. That would be like trying to write off the Black American. If we do that, how do we explain our railroad system or the construction of Washington, DC or the discovery of plasma.

One can advocate for the good of the majority, without doing it at the expense of the minority. In simple English, I can say that I like Gregorian chant and organs, rather than saying that hymns and guitars are bad. The truth is that they are not bad. They were not the common form of music for the majority, but they were always used.

The same holds true for the distribution of Holy Communion. The priest is not the only person who can take Communion to the sick. In many places it’s a deacon. The priest does not have to do it, if there is a deacon. In a parish run by religious, it can be one of the brothers, who is neither a priest nor a deacon. It’s by assignment, not by clerical state. I’m neither a deacon nor a priest, but I take communion to hospice every morning, because the Franciscans of Life minister to the voiceless, especially to the terminally ill. We’re not nurses or social workers. Taking Communion to these folks is part of our vocation.

If you write off everyone who is not a priest, you have effectively written off all of those religious who’s vocation is to serve the sick and the dying. You have to qualify it as does the Church, with words such as : ordinary, usual, normal, typical, extraordinary, atypical special, etc.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

newyorkcatholic, I know you’re not calling me that directly, I merely wanted to point out the dangers in generalizing.

1. I do have a problem with the Legion of Christ. The issues with the founder’s life are so awful, they shouldn’t be allowed to reform. No one will ask me, but if someone did, I’d say disband the whole Legion, help every priest find somewhere else, and ban all Legionary leadership (the highest leaders) from holding any positions of leadership in any future placement.

You’re consistent, I’ll give you that

I suppose I take the stance where if the organization stepped away from the founder, then I’d give the a second chance. In the case of Life Teen, they jettisoned all ties with their founder. Any comparisons to the current leadership versus him would be a fallacy. Plus the Pope hasn’t suppressed either group, and if the Pope is cool with things than so am I.

And yes, I take the same attitude towards the SSPX, in the sense that the actions of His Grace Lefebvre do not reflect on the priests and laity of today. And if (hopefully when!) they come back home, I’ll be the first to support them and their activities. But remember; the founder of the SSPX had some questionable ideas on how to get his message out there, so if you judge things based on the actions of the founder, be careful.

Like gathering around the altar … I wonder why it ever got to the point where they needed to be told to stop … they should never have tried that.

Some people are well-meaning, and do things without asking permission. This is one of those times, and people liked it and it caught on.

I know their reasoning, but I was never a fan of the practice. It was actually something that bothered me enough that I was considering leaving at one point, until the message came down saying “we were told to stop, so stop”. I thought “I can get onboard with an organization that listens to the Holy See!” so I stuck around. The rest is history.

After research, I know that several religious do something similar with going around the altar, but they have everyone do it, not just one group So even after my research, I’m still not pleased with it in hindsight.

But like I said, they got rid of it. Obedience, a wonderful concept!

(Also, my condolences on the injury to Mr. Rivera. He’ll be back next year, count on it).

 

[newyorkcatholic]

newyorkcatholic, I know you’re not calling me that directly, I merely wanted to point out the dangers in generalizing.

You’re consistent, I’ll give you that

I suppose I take the stance where if the organization stepped away from the founder, then I’d give the a second chance. In the case of Life Teen, they jettisoned all ties with their founder. Any comparisons to the current leadership versus him would be a fallacy. Plus the Pope hasn’t suppressed either group, and if the Pope is cool with things than so am I.

And yes, I take the same attitude towards the SSPX, in the sense that the actions of His Grace Lefebvre do not reflect on the priests and laity of today. And if (hopefully when!) they come back home, I’ll be the first to support them and their activities. But remember; the founder of the SSPX had some questionable ideas on how to get his message out there, so if you judge things based on the actions of the founder, be careful.

Some people are well-meaning, and do things without asking permission. This is one of those times, and people liked it and it caught on.

I know their reasoning, but I was never a fan of the practice. It was actually something that bothered me enough that I was considering leaving at one point, until the message came down saying “we were told to stop, so stop”. I thought “I can get onboard with an organization that listens to the Holy See!” so I stuck around. The rest is history.

After research, I know that several religious do something similar with going around the altar, but they have everyone do it, not just one group So even after my research, I’m still not pleased with it in hindsight.

But like I said, they got rid of it. Obedience, a wonderful concept!

(Also, my condolences on the injury to Mr. Rivera. He’ll be back next year, count on it).

Interesting points. For once, I am not going to make verbose rebuttals.

 

[1AugustSon7]

For this sector of the Catholic population, Gregorian chant is a novelty. We were introduced to it in the 1970s.

Unfortunately for your statement, Catholics would have been familiar with Gregorian chant regardless. Few people are born and raised in religious houses that might not make use of it, which your answer would seem to have to assume in order to make it anything remotely like true.

Only the modern generation grew up practically, if not utterly, devoid of Gregorian chant. But thanks to the internet more people can become acquainted with its authentic culture and beauty.

For a start, Dies Irae comes to mind.

 

[JReducation]

Unfortunately for your statement, Catholics would have been familiar with Gregorian chant regardless. Few people are born and raised in religious houses that might not make use of it, which your answer would seem to have to assume in order to make it anything remotely like true.

You missed the point. To THIS population, Gregorian chant was a novelty. It’s not that individual friars had not heard it. Good gravy, I was born long before 1970. But the idea of actually using Gregorian chant in daily worship was not part of my upbringing, because I did not go to daily mass and did not live in a monastery. When I finally did enter a friary and went to daily mass and prayed the Divine Office five times a day, it was not in Gregorian Chant.

When someone said that we could use it, if we asked for permission, most of us asked, “Why would we want to ask for that?” It’s the same question that older people would have asked if they had been given a choice between a mass with chant and a mass with glory and praise music. They would probably ask, “Why are we doing that?”

To any young man or woman aspiring to be a Franciscan or a Jesuit (they don’t use it either) they would have in mind the Divine Office recited and the mass with plain chant and hymns. That would be part of the attraction to this way of life. To walk in to find a bunch of friars chanting away as if they were Benedictines, would be a novelty to the unsuspecting person. It’s still a novelty to the unsuspecting person.

To the best of my knowledge, the only Franciscans who have permission to use it full time are the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Anyone who is familiar with other Franciscans and does not know about the FI, will think it a novelty to see them chanting.

The most important point is that you cannot whiteout a significant minority. 1.7 million people on a bad day is no small number of people.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

You missed the point. To THIS population, Gregorian chant was a novelty.

You mean Americans? Americans didn’t use Gregorian chant until 1970? I didn’t know that.