Priest: "Thank you" during Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ASD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ASD

Guest
Sometimes people say that a drawback of NO/OF Mass is that Priests tend to switch in and out of the strictly liturgical role or mode. An example from local NO/OF parish: one second offering host; the next second making a quiet little joke with server when water mixed with wine; then back to offering chalice in priestly role.

Another small example from the daily NO/OF Mass I attend: At a couple places in the Mass, when people respond “And also with you,” the Priest says, “thank you.” E.g.,
R: And also with you.
P: Thank you. Let us offer each other the Sign of Peace.
Click to expand...
Some people might think it’s nutty to even notice such a thing and insane pettiness to complain. Dunno. I care about Mass. NB: I stipulate: it’s 100% obvious that Father means well. But:


  1. *]Personal: I really don’t like it. It seems to me that the Priest should be focused entirely on the Mass. No chit chat. Not even two chummy words once or twice. (Cf, e.g., new FSSP training DVD. Priest focused absolutely on Mass.) However, this point ultimately doesn’t matter; the fact that I don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.
    *]Educational: Or mis-educational. Dis-educational. Misleading. It seems to misrepresent the Sign of Peace to congregation. As if we had just said, “have a nice day, Father.” But, we didn’t say that. We were “participating” in a liturgy. It wasn’t a pleasantry; it was a liturgical action, or something along those lines. (Maybe that’s the big problem with active participation: Who knows exactly what we’re doing? It’s like amateur hour.)
    *]Technical: I thought the Priest wasn’t supposed to change, drop or add any words?

    I know this kind of question has been exercised hundreds of times on CAF. So, this can be the shortest thread in CAF history.

    I just want to know: Are those two added words permissible, or is it a technical violation?

    I guess I could figure this out using Cross Reference, so maybe just indicate relevant documents, etc.

    TIA. ASD​

    Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
 
I find that most priests don’t do this, but there are a few who do. Have had a lot of experience of different parishes. Most offer the Mass with quiet reverence and reserve personal comments for later, when speaking with parishioners…but I am speaking from across a large ocean…
 
sucgh issues as the priest making a comment to the altar servers is hardly a new thing; it occured prior to Vatican 2, as I was an altar server then. It wasn’t a regular occurance, but neither was it a once in a life time occurance.

There are two philosophical schools of thought within Europe as to law; the northern, or Germanic, and the southern, or Mediterranian (or Italian).

The Germanic approach can be summed up, whatever is not allowed is forbidden. The southern flips that: whatever is not forbidden is allowed. As with most aphorisms, they are perhaps both somewhat overstatements. The US by and large takes a germanic approach, which is a much more strict approach, and that carries over into ecclesial law. It is said that in reference to rulings from Rome, the tendency in Europe is to make no fuss; promise obedience, and then do what they wish. The tendency in the US is to kick at the traces, fuss and argue against it, but once it is explained and reasoned out, to follow it faithfully.

Obviously, within any area one can find complete contradicitons to those very general observations. One would wish that the Mass were celebrated with reverence at the minimum. But for those who are overly anal about rules, one should also remember that the rules we have were made in Europe; just because we look at the rules in a certain way does not mean that the rule makers do likewise.

And while we are at it, reverence is not an absolute jot and tittle following of the rule; it is an expression of something much deeper than rules. One can follow the rules absolutely and not be reverent. And for this, we need only to listen to Christ’s words in the Gospels as he excoriates the Pharisees, who were quite good at following the letter of the law. Again, that does not say that the Pharisees should have violated the law with impunity.
 
I dunno. I know a priest that seems to have an aversion to the word “hymn” in the Preface. He always substitutes “song.”

To me, little personal additions to the Liturgy like this seem trivial and like forced chuminess and kumbaya. But that’s just me. I don’t know where these celebrants ever got the idea that the Liturgy is made more meaninful or personable by by these little innovations.
 
I think you need to find a hobby, you have waaaay too much time on your hands.
 
otjm said:
But for those who are overly anal about rules, one should also remember that the rules we have were made in Europe; just because we look at the rules in a certain way does not mean that the rule makers do likewise.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but you forgot to balance your statement by including an “On the other hand…” Allow me:
On the other hand, those who favor a relaxed, sometimes a “rules are just suggestions or guidelines” approach, should keep in mind that rules are established, certainly not as an end in themselves, but still for a good reasons, some of them being:
Click to expand...
  • Consistency in worship everywhere and for everyone.
  • The safeguarding of theological truth
  • The preservation of timeless tradition (as opposed to fads)
  • As a hedge against rampant innovation and the development of a “cult of personality” around individuals who bow to popular tastes.
Click to expand...
There – your statement is now complete and balanced! 🙂
 
otjm said:
…listen to Christ’s words in the Gospels as he excoriates the Pharisees, who were quite good at following the letter of the law. Again, that does not say that the Pharisees should have violated the law with impunity.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that one thing Jesus berated the pharisees for was making up their own rules. See, e.g., Matthew 15.
 
Fidelis said:
Fair enough, but you forgot to balance your statement by including an “On the other hand…” Allow me:

There – your statement is now complete and balanced! 🙂
Click to expand...
So, do you find that there is only an either/or - it is either absolutely by the book or "rules are just suggestions or guidelines?
 
otjm said:
So, do you find that there is only an either/or - it is either absolutely by the book or "rules are just suggestions or guidelines?
Click to expand...
Personally? I don’t ascribe strictly to either extreme as you describe it; in my experience, the first would be too wooden and boring and the second is anarchic and leads to silliness and trivialization.

I find there is lots and lots of room for personal expression by the celebrant and by all present *without *adding to or changing the rubrics or order of the liturgy as prescribed by the Church.
 
ASD said:
Yea. Maybe you’re right. But, I guess I won’t worry about it too much until I get up around 2,887 posts.
Click to expand...
Before you post your next snotty comeback, you might note I’ve been on these forums for almost 5 years.
 
Island Oak- He had a good point; don’t criticize for someone’s honest attempt to clarify a point about the Mass, which is the ‘source and summit’ of Christian life. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out to others.
 
This is an example of the banalization of the Mass. It becomes a pedestrian “meeting” instead of the highest prayer of the Church. There’s good reason to object to this sort of thing.

Restoring the exclusive use of Latin to the liturgy would obliterate such abuses, and ensure the elevated nature of the prayer. Re-orienting the priest so he faces the crucifix with the congregation would also be an excellent step.

Wait! We already have this! Just go to the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
ASD said:
Sometimes people say that a drawback of NO/OF Mass is that Priests tend to switch in and out of the strictly liturgical role or mode. An example from local NO/OF parish: one second offering host; the next second making a quiet little joke with server when water mixed with wine; then back to offering chalice in priestly role.

Another small example from the daily NO/OF Mass I attend: At a couple places in the Mass, when people respond “And also with you,” the Priest says, “thank you.” E.g.,

Some people might think it’s nutty to even notice such a thing and insane pettiness to complain. Dunno. I care about Mass. NB: I stipulate: it’s 100% obvious that Father means well. But:


  1. *]Personal: I really don’t like it. It seems to me that the Priest should be focused entirely on the Mass. No chit chat. Not even two chummy words once or twice. (Cf, e.g., new FSSP training DVD. Priest focused absolutely on Mass.) However, this point ultimately doesn’t matter; the fact that I don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.
    *]Educational: Or mis-educational. Dis-educational. Misleading. It seems to misrepresent the Sign of Peace to congregation. As if we had just said, “have a nice day, Father.” But, we didn’t say that. We were “participating” in a liturgy. It wasn’t a pleasantry; it was a liturgical action, or something along those lines. (Maybe that’s the big problem with active participation: Who knows exactly what we’re doing? It’s like amateur hour.)
    *]Technical: I thought the Priest wasn’t supposed to change, drop or add any words?

    I know this kind of question has been exercised hundreds of times on CAF. So, this can be the shortest thread in CAF history.

    I just want to know: Are those two added words permissible, or is it a technical violation?

    I guess I could figure this out using Cross Reference, so maybe just indicate relevant documents, etc.

    TIA. ASD​

    Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
Click to expand...

  1. In brief, no this sort of thing is not permitted.

    If it’s not in the Sacramentary (one way or another) it isn’t to be done. Those little things like “thank you” merely serve to trivialize the Mass and detract from the sacred–they have no legitimate purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top