Survey shows Catholic priests don’t like Mass changes

[kag1982]

And I think, you don’t understand how the Church works.

I just think that it may have distracted the Vatican. It seems that this was all they were concerned about.

 

[Lucky7]

I just think that it may have distracted the Vatican. It seems that this was all they were concerned about.

Key word: seems…to you.

 

[sw85]

A friend described the Missal changes as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Corruption and abuse scandals aside for a moment, there seem to be sizable problems that remain: Catholic school closings and an alarming jump in tuition costs that squeeze out many faithful families, a dwindling number of diocesan priests, etc. Giving up the last Missal (and, as my husband describes it, the feeling of being “at home” in the Mass), failing to allot precious resources to the kinds of issues listed above…all for the sake of what is claimed to be a more faithful translation? Meh.

That’s a strange argument. ICEL is not the Vatican, much less the whole of the Vatican. So ICEL revising its (earlier, inaccurate) translation in no way “consumes resources” that the Vatican would/could use for other purposes.

Many, many, many people gave up the feeling of being “at home” at Mass when the Vatican foisted a new Missal on them with virtually no transition. That’s how we got to the present mess.

Suddenly everyone’s a reactionary.

 

[kag1982]

Key word: seems…to you.

Because the Church was in such great shape earlier this year?

 

[jilly4ski]

That’s a strange argument. ICEL is not the Vatican, much less the whole of the Vatican. So ICEL revising its (earlier, inaccurate) translation in no way “consumes resources” that the Vatican would/could use for other purposes.

Many, many, many people gave up the feeling of being “at home” at Mass when the Vatican foisted a new Missal on them with virtually no transition. That’s how we got to the present mess.

Suddenly everyone’s a reactionary.

Everybody clinging to the old missal, complaining about the new missal. How appropriate that people whining about this are the ones to criticize traditionalists the most.

What is with all this stuff about the Church was not in good shape last year? Yeah, the butler thing, did we even see the information that was leaked. As far as I can see nothing new or scandalous was discovered, except that the Holy Father’s valet was dishonest and stole confidential documents. The US has largely dealt with its abuse problems and set in place guidelines and procedures to stop it happening (or reporting it quickly) in the future. Which is largely the purview of the local College of Bishops and local dioceses.

 

[ProVobis]

And if there were no sampling bias, then I’d be willing to agree. As it is, though, I’m not certain I’d hang my reputation on the assertion that this is a representative group…

Fair point.

But then I can make the claim that many of the Vatican II documents were translated into English with a bias as well. Tough to find a group which doesn’t promote an agenda.

 

[ProVobis]

We need to embrace these reforms which the Church in her wisdom gives us. We need to embrace them wholeheartedly without reservation or quarrel. These earthly things which you mention are all secondary and actually flow from our first responsibility to have right liturgy.

But the reforms themselves were in response to the old Mass, where the Latin text was strict, there had to be a certain number of genuflections, of bows, of crosses, of syllables between crosses, etc. After the fasting and abstinence rules were relaxed, it seemed the liturgical strictness was meant to be relaxed as well. Some obviously like Mass strictness, and I’m one of them attending the EF, but one does need to put things into some historical perspective to understand the thinking behind the reforms.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[kag1982]

Everybody clinging to the old missal, complaining about the new missal. How appropriate that people whining about this are the ones to criticize traditionalists the most.

What is with all this stuff about the Church was not in good shape last year? Yeah, the butler thing, did we even see the information that was leaked. As far as I can see nothing new or scandalous was discovered, except that the Holy Father’s valet was dishonest and stole confidential documents. The US has largely dealt with its abuse problems and set in place guidelines and procedures to stop it happening (or reporting it quickly) in the future. Which is largely the purview of the local College of Bishops and local dioceses.

If the Vatican was in such good shape, then the Cardinals wouldn’t have gone so anti-establishment in the Conclave. And no, the abuse scandal is not over. Cardinal O’Brien admitted to sexual harassment right before the Conclave. There are places outside the U.S. that have not dealt with it. And in the U.S., Cardinals like Mahoney are still running around without facing any punishment.

 

[jilly4ski]

If the Vatican was in such good shape, then the Cardinals wouldn’t have gone so anti-establishment in the Conclave. And no, the abuse scandal is not over. Cardinal O’Brien admitted to sexual harassment right before the Conclave. There are places outside the U.S. that have not dealt with it. And in the U.S., Cardinals like Mahoney are still running around without facing any punishment.

Anti-establishment… I think you will be in a for a rude awakening if you actually pay attention to what Pope Francis says and does.

I asked you before, what do you propose the Church do in these cases. There is little or no actual evidence against many of these people, the bishops who covered up abuse and moved priests did so largely with the consent and approval of law enforcement and the psychological community, and it happened many years ago. As far as O’Brien, I am not in Scotland so I don’t know all the particulars, but his misconduct was not against minors, was not known before hand. So I ask again, what would you have the Church do. He committed no crimes (as far as I know), he sinned. Last time I looked we are all sinners, including every priest, bishop, the pope and even us lay people.

 

[kag1982]

Anti-establishment… I think you will be in a for a rude awakening if you actually pay attention to what Pope Francis says and does.

I asked you before, what do you propose the Church do in these cases. There is little or no actual evidence against many of these people, the bishops who covered up abuse and moved priests did so largely with the consent and approval of law enforcement and the psychological community, and it happened many years ago. As far as O’Brien, I am not in Scotland so I don’t know all the particulars, but his misconduct was not against minors, was not known before hand. So I ask again, what would you have the Church do. He committed no crimes (as far as I know), he sinned. Last time I looked we are all sinners, including every priest, bishop, the pope and even us lay people.

Yes… I am aware that the Pope is still Catholic. By anti-establishment, I mean rejecting the ideas and self-referential navel gazing associated with the last decade. And all of the ridiculous traditions associated with the office itself. His little speech during the pre-Conclave meetings strike me as a pretty clear rejection of the Curia. Theological narcissism and inside baseball indeed. I don’t think that Francis would waste any time or energy on new Missal translations and I don’t think he likes or spends time thinking about the EF mass. My theory is that Francis sees the Mass, prayers, rosaries, etc. as tools to help people be good Catholic in their daily lives. It is more important than what happens outside of Mass. I believe that Francis thinks that too much time has been spent on the finer points of the liturgy and debating inside baseball. He clearly doesn’t care about the rubrics or the exact wording of the Mass. He is willing to violate the rubrics if he has a point that he wants to make.

And please, let’s not whitewash the Church’s issues or excuse them. A good Catholic should voice criticism when the human institution that is the Church fails to live up to its standards. Making up excuses for the Church helps no one.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think that Francis would waste any time or energy on new Missal translations and I don’t think he likes or spends time thinking about the EF mass.

I bet he spends some time thinking about discipline, though.

 

[salusanimarum17]

Yes… I am aware that the Pope is still Catholic. By anti-establishment, I mean rejecting the ideas and self-referential navel gazing associated with the last decade. And all of the ridiculous traditions associated with the office itself. His little speech during the pre-Conclave meetings strike me as a pretty clear rejection of the Curia. Theological narcissism and inside baseball indeed. I don’t think that Francis would waste any time or energy on new Missal translations and I don’t think he likes or spends time thinking about the EF mass. My theory is that Francis sees the Mass, prayers, rosaries, etc. as tools to help people be good Catholic in their daily lives. It is more important than what happens outside of Mass. I believe that Francis thinks that too much time has been spent on the finer points of the liturgy and debating inside baseball. He clearly doesn’t care about the rubrics or the exact wording of the Mass. He is willing to violate the rubrics if he has a point that he wants to make.

And please, let’s not whitewash the Church’s issues or excuse them. A good Catholic should voice criticism when the human institution that is the Church fails to live up to its standards. Making up excuses for the Church helps no one.

Your comments in this thread have more platitudes than I can bear. First, it was all this talk about “the Vatican” obsessing over liturgy and not paying attention to abuse and now it’s “the Curia” as the bad guy. Naval-gazing. Who was doing that? Give us names of people if you are going to make such judgmental comments.

 

[kag1982]

Your comments in this thread have more platitudes than I can bear. First, it was all this talk about “the Vatican” obsessing over liturgy and not paying attention to abuse and now it’s “the Curia” as the bad guy. Naval-gazing. Who was doing that? Give us names of people if you are going to make such judgmental comments.

I’m talking in general terms and not criticizing individuals, which is against forum rules.

 

[Tigg]

My friend is married to a self-described ex-Catholic (she’s of Hispanic origin in Texas). In discussions with him alone, he said she told him that the Church has Spanish masses to intentionally keep Hispanics away from the white people. That the Church doesn’t want co-mingling of “undesirable groups”, and so it has masses in Spanish, Polish, etc. I was completely taken aback and shocked. How many others think the same way?

Fortunately, my other friends and I quickly corrected him. He reported back to us that in his discussion with his wife that what she meant was “certain priests” did this, and not the Church in general. And while that may be possible, at least she conceded it wasn’t the Church

But going back to a Latin mass would certainly eliminate this erroneous (and scandalous) thinking.

Never heard this one before, but we agree. Sometimes good intentions have negative connotations. Our Hispanic pastor is a very loving man who only wants to affirm his people. Ironically, his main message to us is to build community, but 95% of the parish do not attend the Spanish Mass nor the celebrations that tend to be wholly exclusive, like the Guadalupe Feast. With this separateness, I’ve never been able to understand how we can reach out to each other or come together as a church family.

Language is so important……individual words are important and translations can be veiled in meanings that are not meant to be conveyed.

 

[ProVobis]

Never heard this one before, but we agree. Sometimes good intentions have negative connotations. Our Hispanic pastor is a very loving man who only wants to affirm his people. Ironically, his main message to us is to build community, but 95% of the parish do not attend the Spanish Mass nor the celebrations that tend to be wholly exclusive, like the Guadalupe Feast. With this separateness, I’ve never been able to understand how we can reach out to each other or come together as a church family.

Language is so important……individual words are important and translations can be veiled in meanings that are not meant to be conveyed.

FWIW, according to a reliable news source, the Vatican now regards the U.S. as a bilingual country and is intent on filling the spiritual needs of the Spanish communities, even if they have to train priests and deacons to at least learn Spanish pronunciations of the liturgy.

 

[Tigg]

FWIW, according to a reliable news source, the Vatican now regards the U.S. as a bilingual country and is intent on filling the spiritual needs of the Spanish communities, even if they have to train priests and deacons to at least learn Spanish pronunciations of the liturgy.

We are veering off topic here, but my question was how do non-Spanish speaking parishioners reach their hand across the aisle in friendship to Latinos when there is no basic communication and we’re separated from each other due to different liturgies, but still the same church community?

 

[ProVobis]

We are veering off topic here, but my question was how do non-Spanish speaking parishioners reach their hand across the aisle in friendship to Latinos when there is no basic communication and we’re separated from each other due to different liturgies, but still the same church community?

This is a growing problem but as Suudy et al may have suggested, start with having everyone respond in the Latin.

The parish where I attend has English and Spanish Masses. As well as the Extraordinary Form where we all meet, either on Sundays or special occasions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is a growing problem but as Suudy et al may have suggested, start with having everyone respond in the Latin.

Yep. Latin is the Church’s language. Missals can be dual-language (either Spanish/Latin OR English/Latin), and in addition (as you say) separate Spanish and English Masses where the parish population warrants that and there are resources for that.

I have to say, though, in many parishes with heavily “Latino” populations, still there is over a 50% English-fluency rate, despite much greater than 50% Latino populations (in many cases). And generally, the children’s first language is NOT Spanish, but English.

It should never happen that the Mass prayers and readings are in alternate languages, so that no single language is consistent. When this happens it means that except for the very small minority who may be truly multi-lingual (which is usually also with a high level of educaiton), much of the Mass will be unintelligible to most of the congregation. That is a form of liturgical abuse which was never approved or even suggested by Vatican 2.

 

[kag1982]

I generally attend a Spanish Mass. I enjoy the atmosphere and love being able to practice my Spanish. But I can tell you that the major ceremonies… Easter Vigil, Holy Thursday, Christmas Eve Mass alternate in both English and Spanish. The celebration of the Eucharist is in English.

As for the main question, there is no way that this church will ever go to Latin Masses, bit eve if it did, people still wouldn’t comingle. It is two different worlds. I live in a affluent suburb of Chicago (Evanston) that has rough areas close to the city. So socio-economic differences.

 

[ProVobis]

When this happens it means that except for the very small minority who may be truly multi-lingual (which is usually also with a high level of educaiton), much of the Mass will be unintelligible to most of the congregation. That is a form of liturgical abuse which was never approved or even suggested by Vatican 2.

I don’t know if I’d call this a liturgical abuse. It’s perhaps an unintended consequence of having Mass in a vernacular. But it’s not as bad now as it was in the 60’s when the English Mass was forced on everyone in the U.S. I would have preferred Mass in Polish back then. Or Latin.

As for the main question, there is no way that this church will ever go to Latin Masses, bit eve if it did, people still wouldn’t comingle. It is two different worlds. I live in a affluent suburb of Chicago (Evanston) that has rough areas close to the city. So socio-economic differences.

FWIW, the Archdiocese of Chicago has Mass in 24 vernaculars. It also has 10 EF’s. This pleases many, I’m sure.