The bickering stops here

[thevickinator16]

Whereas other threads are discussions by sincere people about actual topics, this thread from the start has been nothing but pointless bickering. :slapfight:

Do you really believe that? No you don’t or you would not read it. There was always infighting among the apostles. We are humans. You just have to look at the goal. No matter what each of us believes, we MUST love God. that is the only thing in this world. Every individual finds their own way, through His graces. We are human, so we are not always right. We just have to be aware of the final goal, so to speak. Loving God is a highly personal way, Church has it’s prescribed ways. We as members of His Church have a respnsiblity, to ensure that Satan can not enter into the Mass.

Do you believe that people have no right to express their fears and doubts? We are just a speck of nothingness that God so granted to give life. Trying to get to Heaven is not easy. I am sorrry that you think that we are so glib. Sincere people? Please do not judge me or my fellow people. I am nothing but a speck of nothingness in Jesus’s eye, but I will tell you that I will defend anyone that tries to get to the truth of their beliefs.

Jesus just cried for you, talk to Him!

 

[thevickinator16]

I believe that any rational person understands the concerns of the posters on these threads as they concern the celebration of the Eucharist. Only those who are blind or indifferent (not sure if there is a difference) would fail to notice that abuses and other silliness have creeped into the celebration of the liturgy. We have to correct them and the Church wants them corrected.

That being said, we must also reflect and pray on the words of the Motu Proprio. The Holy Father goes to great lengths to remind Catholics that the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form of the mass are equal in holiness. If they are equal in holiness, then they are equal in dignity and in efficaciousness. Christ’s sacrfice is truly present. He is truly present in his body and blood. The universal Church is truly present.

These are mysteries that are beyond the grasp of any abuse or novelty, because the truth about God, redemption and the Church cannot be undone by human weakness. Human weakness can certainly obscure our view of the truth, but it cannot destroy it or alter it.

The point made by the OP is a very valid one. On these forums much energy is spent in debates about which form of the mass is better. The question has only one answer, if we believe what the Holy Father has written and his wishes to preserve both forms. Both forms of the mass are equal. There is no better or worse.

We may have a preference for one over the other. The Church is cognizant of this and wishes to accommodate those who do have such preferences. But the Church does not want is the faithful divided over the celebration of the Eucharist.

In every period of Church history there have been conditions and issues that have needed to be addresseed and corrected. But truth never needs correction, only the way that we communicate it or fail to do so. The truth present in the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the mass is the same today as it was on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper.

The Holy Father is so convinced of this that he includes one directive in the Motu Proprio concerning the use of the Extraordinary Form during the Easter Triduum. It is is not to be universally used during the most high holy days of Christianity.

Again, he speaks about priests who belong to religious communities. While secular priests may celebrate the Extraordinary Form at any time, priests who are religious must follow the rules of their major superiors and the statutes of their religious institutes.

If the Ordinary Form were a less holy form of the mass or different in its value, there would be no such indicators concerning the Easter triduum or religious. The Extraordinary Form would be the norm for the universal Church.

The point regarding religious is very important. The reason this was put into the Motu Proprio was to protect the religious from divisions among them regarding the form of the mass for their communities and their ministries.

Observe the Holy Father’s desire to unite through the mass, not to divide. We need to follow the example and recognize that the two forms of the mass are the same rite. They are not different rites. Pope Benedict makes this quite clear. To say they are different rites is dividing the Western Church. We must commit to supporting the study of liturgy in our parishes and religious education programs so that they may be beautiful and reflect the depth of the truth that the liturgy celebrates. We must commit to tolerance. Whether we’re speaking of the EF or the OF, we must be tolerant with what the Church allows and humble about what she does not allow. We do not have to like it. We just have to admit that it is part of our Catholic Church.

All of this calls for an interior reform within each of us. We must reform the way that we react and respond to what we like and don’t like, so that our responses do not add to division. They should be helpful, not antagonistic, no matter what form of the liturgy one prefers.

Fraternally,

JR

Why is is so hard just to believe? When did Mass or rituals become so important?

I understan the Instution of the Eucrhrist, so why get so hung up on the rest. Is it to us give us something to talk about? I am not trying to be funny.

God Bless!

 

[benedictgal]

Having read the OP, I cannot help but, think of what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote when he composed the meditations for the Stations of the Cross four years ago at the request of the late Pope John Paul II. Here is what he wrote for the Ninth Station:

What can the third fall of Jesus under the Cross say to us? We have considered the fall of man in general, and the falling of many Christians away from Christ and into a godless secularism. Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison * Lord, save us (cf. Mt 8: 25).

The fault lies with us. When we have liturgies that are designed to only celebrate ourselves, when we show little to no respect for the Holy Sacrament of His Presence and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we are clearly not on the right path.

All of this is caused because of our fallen nature. We are the New Israel, but, we have a lot of Ancient Israel’s character flaws within us. How many times did the Lord have to inflict punishment on Ancient Israel because she could not keep the norms of cultic worship? The Babylonian exile was all about that. We are not too terribly far behind.

Liturgical abuses, no matter how small, do more harm than good. We are called to receive in humility and love the immense treasure that has flowed down the stream to us from the hands of the Apostles, who, as St. Paul notes, received it directly from Christ, Himself. When we start tinkering with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, whatever form is celebrated, we are tooling around with what is supposed to be the source and summit of the life of the Church. When we botch this, we have cut our nose to collectively spite the Church.

 

[Lycoming]

…Only those who are blind or indifferent (not sure if there is a difference) would fail to notice that abuses and other silliness have creeped into the celebration of the liturgy. We have to correct them and the Church wants them corrected…

That’s not always true. Often an individual will go off on a rant about something that he views as a “liturgical abuse” when in reality it’s something the Church clearly allows. It’s those types of things that trigger bickering and division.

I read this forum when it first began some years ago. I don’t know how many times I read “the NO Mass is invalid” and “just attend the TLM and everything will be OK.” Those comments derailed thread after thread. Both comments kept me from registering. Thankfully I no longer see such garbage here. Unfortunately some now harp about “organic development” of the OF Mass. More garbage leading to more bickering and it’s sad.

As the OP said – fix the problems, but don’t think you know better than the Church does as none of us do. In the end it’s not up to us, it’s up to God through His Church to correct these problems. Our biggest weapon by far is prayer.

 

[Lycoming]

Why is is so hard just to believe? When did Mass or rituals become so important?

I understan the Instution of the Eucrhrist, so why get so hung up on the rest. Is it to us give us something to talk about? I am not trying to be funny.

God Bless!

When Jesus Christ was sacrificed to His Father for our sins…

 

[JReducation]

That’s not always true. Often an individual will go off on a rant about something that he views as a “liturgical abuse” when in reality it’s something the Church clearly allows. It’s those types of things that trigger bickering and division.

I read this forum when it first began some years ago. I don’t know how many times I read “the NO Mass is invalid” and “just attend the TLM and everything will be OK.” Those comments derailed thread after thread. Both comments kept me from registering. Thankfully I no longer see such garbage here. Unfortunately some now harp about “organic development” of the OF Mass. More garbage leading to more bickering and it’s sad.

As the OP said – fix the problems, but don’t think you know better than the Church does as none of us do. In the end it’s not up to us, it’s up to God through His Church to correct these problems. Our biggest weapon by far is prayer.

Maybe the way I said it was not very clear. I am not referring to perceived abuses or banalities as people like to call them. I am referring to real situations that have happened. Those have to be corrected.

I agree with you 100%. None of us knows better than the Church does. It is not up to any individual to correct our mistakes. It’s a corporate effort. We have to correct our heart and misunderstanding regarding the Eucharist. Bishops and liturgists have to correct the details in the celebration that need fixing.

I will add an idea of my own too. There is always room for us to add beauty to the liturgy through the composition of beautiful music and other art forms. The Church has not said that we must ony use Gregorian chant. It has said that this is the the gem of liturgical music. But this music was created by man. Like this, we can continue to create beautiful music and art for the worship of God.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

Why is is so hard just to believe? When did Mass or rituals become so important?

I understan the Instution of the Eucrhrist, so why get so hung up on the rest. Is it to us give us something to talk about? I am not trying to be funny.

God Bless!

Read the narratives of the Last supper and observe the rituals that Jesus follows and the new ones that he adds to the seder. Ritual is an important part of worship, because it gives structure to worship. It unites the community. It conveys the same meaning to everyone, avoiding multiple interpretations of one solemn truth.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[benedictgal]

Why is is so hard just to believe? When did Mass or rituals become so important?

I understan the Instution of the Eucrhrist, so why get so hung up on the rest. Is it to us give us something to talk about? I am not trying to be funny.

God Bless!

The importance of rubrics and norms is as old as the book of Deuteronomy. God, himself, spent significant amounts of time dictating to Moses just how, when and where He was to be worshipped by Ancient Israel. Chapters and verses are devoted to the speciffics that the Lord commanded Moses to write down. He went into details, from the vesture of the priests to the vessels, to the sacrifice and all the way down to the incense.

In fact, a lot of these elements are present in the cultic of the New Israel, that is to say, the Church. The Prefect Emeritus for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Francis Cardinal Arinze, notes that:

Liturgical celebrations have some elements which are of divine institution. Such are the essentials of the seven sacraments. There are elements which are of ecclesial institution. In deciding on these elements the Church takes great care to be faithful to Holy Scripture, to honor the tradition handed down through the centuries, to manifest her faith and rejoice in it, and to lead all the faithful to worship of God, following the example of Christ, and showing love and service of one’s neighbor. Between these two we can speak of a third: namely, those elements of the liturgy which are found from early days in all or almost all of the great liturgical traditions and which must therefore go back at the very least to a period close to the apostles, and perhaps even to Our Lord. While we may not have certain knowledge on the matter in a given case, it is a strong reason for avoiding hasty innovation or neglect. (cf Varietates Legitimae [VL] 26-27, General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] 397, Liturgiam authenticam [LA] 4-5, Redemptionis Sacramentum [RS] 9)

Liturgical celebrations should be experiences of the traditional faith that is confessed, celebrated and communicated, of hope that is expressed and confirmed and of charity that is sung and lived.

Since liturgical celebrations are public acts performed in the name of the universal Church, with Jesus Christ Himself as the Chief Priest, it follows that as the centuries roll by, the Church has necessarily developed norms according to which, her public worship is to be expressed. Liturgical norms protect this treasure which is Christian worship. They manifest the faith of the Church, promote it, celebrate it, and communicate it. They also manifest the nature of the Church as a hierarchically constituted family, a community of worship, love and service, and a body which promotes union with God and holiness of life and gives sinners hope of conversion, forgiveness and new life in Christ.

Moreover, liturgical norms help to protect the celebration of the sacred mysteries, especially the Holy Eucharist, from being damaged by additions or subtractions which do damage to the faith and which may at times risk making a sacramental celebration invalid. The people of God are thus guaranteed celebrations in line with the traditional Catholic faith and they are not left at the mercy of someone’s personal ideas, feelings, theories or idiosyncrasies.

Pope John Paul II is very insistent on the important role of norms regarding the celebration of the Eucharist. “These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”. (Ecclesia de Eucharistia [EE] 52) Love for the Church leads a person to observe these norms: “Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church”. (ibid) Our respect for the mysteries of the Christ leads us to respect these norms: “No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality”. (ibid)

…Redemptionis Sacramentum is strong on this point: “The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the liturgy. Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding, it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi”. (RS 10)

In the section quoted below, he ties in with what I just wrote:

1. Holy Scripture Stresses the Observance of Norms

In the Old Testament severe punishment was meted out to those to whom the conduct of worship had been entrusted but who ignored the detailed norms for such worship which God gave the chosen people through Moses. The two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, offered unlawful fire and were burnt to death in the sanctuary even in their vestments (cf. Lev 10:1-3; Num 3:4). Korah, Dathan and Abiram rebelled against Moses and Aaron and the ground opened and swallowed them and all their families (cf. Num 16:1-35). And Uzzah touched the Ark to adjust it into its proper position and was struck dead on the spot (cf. II Sam 6:6-7).

No doubt, God is more merciful in the New Testament. But we should not for that reason tempt His patience. Saint Paul castigated those who introduced abuses into the dignified celebration of the Eucharist at gatherings of the Christian community, such as factions, drunkenness and unwillingness of the rich to share with the poor (cf. II Cor 11:17-34).

Let us thank and adore the Lord Jesus who gave us the sacrifice and sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Let us heed the appeal of Pope John Paul II:

I consider it my duty, therefore, to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity.18

Thus norms and rubrics are extremely important. We pray as we believe.

 

[Lycoming]

Maybe the way I said it was not very clear. I am not referring to perceived abuses or banalities as people like to call them. I am referring to real situations that have happened. Those have to be corrected.

I agree with you 100%. None of us knows better than the Church does. It is not up to any individual to correct our mistakes. It’s a corporate effort. We have to correct our heart and misunderstanding regarding the Eucharist. Bishops and liturgists have to correct the details in the celebration that need fixing.

I will add an idea of my own too. There is always room for us to add beauty to the liturgy through the composition of beautiful music and other art forms. The Church has not said that we must ony use Gregorian chant. It has said that this is the the gem of liturgical music. But this music was created by man. Like this, we can continue to create beautiful music and art for the worship of God.

Fraternally,

JR

I think the OP is talking about both real abuses (which he correctly says to fix) and non-abuses which do little more than cause confusion and lead to bickering. As far as “perceived banalities” those rarely goes deeper than personal taste and people that focus on such things are rarely taken seriously.

When I see people offering their personal interpretations of Church documents I am often reminded of our Protestant brethren who do the same thing with the Bible and then get frustrated when we choose not to agree with them. “It’s clear! There’s nothing to interpret!” is often heard from both groups and it does nothing but lead to bickering and continued confusion.

I do agree there are ways to add beauty to the liturgy but they are not always universal so one must at times temper their zeal. One must also constantly ask if what they are pushing for is indeed for the greater glory of God – or for their own egos.

 

[Lycoming]

The point made by the OP is a very valid one. On these forums much energy is spent in debates about which form of the mass is better. The question has only one answer, if we believe what the Holy Father has written and his wishes to preserve both forms. Both forms of the mass are equal. There is no better or worse.

We may have a preference for one over the other. The Church is cognizant of this and wishes to accommodate those who do have such preferences. But the Church does not want is the faithful divided over the celebration of the Eucharist.

In every period of Church history there have been conditions and issues that have needed to be addresseed and corrected. But truth never needs correction, only the way that we communicate it or fail to do so. The truth present in the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the mass is the same today as it was on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper.

Observe the Holy Father’s desire to unite through the mass, not to divide. We need to follow the example and recognize that the two forms of the mass are the same rite. They are not different rites. Pope Benedict makes this quite clear. To say they are different rites is dividing the Western Church. We must commit to supporting the study of liturgy in our parishes and religious education programs so that they may be beautiful and reflect the depth of the truth that the liturgy celebrates. We must commit to tolerance. Whether we’re speaking of the EF or the OF, we must be tolerant with what the Church allows and humble about what she does not allow. We do not have to like it. We just have to admit that it is part of our Catholic Church.

All of this calls for an interior reform within each of us. ** We must reform the way that we react and respond to what we like and don’t like, so that our responses do not add to division. They should be helpful, not antagonistic, no matter what form of the liturgy one prefers.**

Fraternally,

JR

Outstanding.

Every time I hear someone say “just compare the OF and EF side by side and you’ll see the EF is SUPERIOR!!” makes me wonder just how off-the-tracks or non-existent catechesis is for some people.

 

[mystified]

The OP has some good points.

Right up front, I’ll say that I would prefer greater availability of what is now called the EF.
This is not to say that the OF cannot be reverently celebrated and that the EF cannot be slp-dash and irreverent.

Many of the bickering points are externals.

I honestly don’t know why people in the pews of my parish go into the orans position several times during the OF Mass…reqlly bugs me. I hope the OF Masses go back to using real chalices…I hope our priests will learn to stand still instead of wandering aroung the church during the homily, but I really prefer the vestments of the OF over the “fiddlebacks” of the EF.

Although presently exiled to the Diocese of Orange, I still pray with my hands together, kneel during the Agnus Dei, and do not receive the Body of Christ in my hands.

Again, most of these things are externals.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[JReducation]

I think the OP is talking about both real abuses (which he correctly says to fix) and non-abuses which do little more than cause confusion and lead to bickering. As far as “perceived banalities” those rarely goes deeper than personal taste and people that focus on such things are rarely taken seriously.

When I see people offering their personal interpretations of Church documents I am often reminded of our Protestant brethren who do the same thing with the Bible and then get frustrated when we choose not to agree with them. “It’s clear! There’s nothing to interpret!” is often heard from both groups and it does nothing but lead to bickering and continued confusion.

I do agree there are ways to add beauty to the liturgy but they are not always universal so one must at times temper their zeal. One must also constantly ask if what they are pushing for is indeed for the greater glory of God – or for their own egos.

I should be sleeping, because I am sick. But I can’t sleep. So I’ll just share.

I agree with you on several points. I have often found on CAF that many of the debates about the liturgy are like the debates with some fundamentalist Protestants. For every citation that you can pull up I can pull out anohter, if you know what I mean. At some point I just say, “Let it go! Let the Sacred Congregation for Liturgy do its job.” The fact that we can read these documents does not guarrantee that our understanding or application of them is correct. It’s certainly OK to share what one has read and to discuss it with others. But it’s quite another thing to try to impose one’s understanding on others, when one does not have the qualifications or the authority to do so. This only causes conflicts, rather than bring people into a closer union with the Lord in the Eucharist.

I also agree that the so called banalities are not always tragic. Some simple examples: female altar servers, communion in the hand, communion standing, not wearing a veil at mass, holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, female lectors, EMHC, all of these are allowed by the Church. Some are allowed as a regular thing and others are allowed under an indult of some kind. There are indults all over the place that we don’t know much about.

For those watching TV this coming Good Friday, you will see the official preacher of the Papal Household deliver his annual Good Friday homily to the Pope and the entire staff at the Vatican. It will be one of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars.

Now watch how silly people can get. The Capuchin Franciscans have a tradition that goes back to the time of St. Francis that prohibits any distinctions between ordained and lay friars. The only time you see a distinction is during mass when the ordained friars wear vestments. Outside of mass they wear the same habit and in the community they all go by the title Brother, Frater or Friar.

The rule for preaching at any liturgy is that the priest must wear at least a stole, an alb and stole is more desireable. The Capuchin friar who preaches to the Papal household wears neither a stole nor an alb. He introduces himself in Italian as Fratello or Fra, meaning Brother. This is an indult that has been granted to the Capuchins for centuries. It is up to the friar and his superior to decide whether he wears a stole and alb or not. Most superiors leave it to the friar.

Last year, I was watching on EWTN. The commentator, I believe it was Raymond Arroyo commented on the lack of stole and alb. He explained the indult. The Msgr. who was seated next to him said that they had deliberately written Father on the subtitle, instead of Brother, because many people would be confused or scandalized if they wrote Brother. I wondered, why would anyone be scandalized? Confused I can understand. That’s the job of the commentator to explain that this is an order that uses the title Brother and they have this inddult to preach without priestly vestments, but scandalized over an 800 year tradition?

We may have gone from the extreme of being sloppy in our worship to being gossipy. I can’t think of another word. I’m sure there is a better one.

Part of fixing the problems that we have is understanding what the Church allows, why, to whom and under what circumstances. If we correct our own thinking, we can feel more comfortable, even if we would like to see something different.

It’s like marriage. I don’t know of any married couple who have 100% agreement on everything. But in good marriages there is tolerance for what is allowed.

Our relationship to the Church is also a covenant relationship, just like marriage. Those things that are not allowed need to be fixed. There are proper channels for the laity to help and there are proper authorities whose job it is to fix these problems. There has to be cooperation and patience. I wonder if we are too impatient. Maybe that’s why we pick up a document from before Vatican II or after Vatican II and push it in some one’s face hoping that this will shut them up and we can move on with life as we want it to be.

If it does not work that way, we become upset, rather than work together to understand.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I do not argue with those who want to argue about the mass. I’ll answer questions, ask questions, listen to opinions, expres mine and let the Holy Spirit renew us.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

The OP has some good points.

I honestly don’t know why people in the pews of my parish go into the **orans position **several times during the OF Mass…reqlly bugs me. .

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this?

JR

 

[Cat]

I should be sleeping, because I am sick. But I can’t sleep. So I’ll just share.

I agree with you on several points. I have often found on CAF that many of the debates about the liturgy are like the debates with some fundamentalist Protestants. For every citation that you can pull up I can pull out anohter, if you know what I mean. At some point I just say, “Let it go! Let the Sacred Congregation for Liturgy do its job.” **The fact that we can read these documents does not guarrantee that our understanding or application of them is correct. It’s certainly OK to share what one has read and to discuss it with others. But it’s quite another thing to try to impose one’s understanding on others, when one does not have the qualifications or the authority to do so. ** This only causes conflicts, rather than bring people into a closer union with the Lord in the Eucharist.

I also agree that the so called banalities are not always tragic. Some simple examples: female altar servers, communion in the hand, communion standing, not wearing a veil at mass, holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, female lectors, EMHC, all of these are allowed by the Church. Some are allowed as a regular thing and others are allowed under an indult of some kind. There are indults all over the place that we don’t know much about.

For those watching TV this coming Good Friday, you will see the official preacher of the Papal Household deliver his annual Good Friday homily to the Pope and the entire staff at the Vatican. It will be one of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars.

Now watch how silly people can get. The Capuchin Franciscans have a tradition that goes back to the time of St. Francis that prohibits any distinctions between ordained and lay friars. The only time you see a distinction is during mass when the ordained friars wear vestments. Outside of mass they wear the same habit and in the community they all go by the title Brother, Frater or Friar.

The rule for preaching at any liturgy is that the priest must wear at least a stole, an alb and stole is more desireable. The Capuchin friar who preaches to the Papal household wears neither a stole nor an alb. He introduces himself in Italian as Fratello or Fra, meaning Brother. This is an indult that has been granted to the Capuchins for centuries. It is up to the friar and his superior to decide whether he wears a stole and alb or not. Most superiors leave it to the friar.

Last year, I was watching on EWTN. The commentator, I believe it was Raymond Arroyo commented on the lack of stole and alb. He explained the indult. The Msgr. who was seated next to him said that they had deliberately written Father on the subtitle, instead of Brother, because many people would be confused or scandalized if they wrote Brother. I wondered, why would anyone be scandalized? Confused I can understand. That’s the job of the commentator to explain that this is an order that uses the title Brother and they have this inddult to preach without priestly vestments, but scandalized over an 800 year tradition?

We may have gone from the extreme of being sloppy in our worship to being gossipy. I can’t think of another word. I’m sure there is a better one.

Part of fixing the problems that we have is understanding what the Church allows, why, to whom and under what circumstances. If we correct our own thinking, we can feel more comfortable, even if we would like to see something different.

It’s like marriage. I don’t know of any married couple who have 100% agreement on everything. But in good marriages there is tolerance for what is allowed.

Our relationship to the Church is also a covenant relationship, just like marriage. Those things that are not allowed need to be fixed. There are proper channels for the laity to help and there are proper authorities whose job it is to fix these problems. There has to be cooperation and patience. I wonder if we are too impatient. Maybe that’s why we pick up a document from before Vatican II or after Vatican II and push it in some one’s face hoping that this will shut them up and we can move on with life as we want it to be.

If it does not work that way, we become upset, rather than work together to understand.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I do not argue with those who want to argue about the mass. I’ll answer questions, ask questions, listen to opinions, expres mine and let the Holy Spirit renew us.

Fraternally,

JR

JR, glad to see you back on CAF, and I pray that your sickness will be brief and you will feel rested and strong soon.

See the boldface above. I have a very hard time with this in regards to Mass-appropriate music. Several posters on CAF continue to try to convince me and others that according to the “documents,” many of the songs that we currently sing in OF Mass are inappropriate and don’t have a sense of the faith. They make a claim that certain styles of music are inappropriate for Mass. And some posters even claim that instruments other than the pipe organ are inappropriate.

I don’t think the “documents” are clear-cut at all. I believe that the “documents” allow for many different musical styles and instruments, and that the authority for approving Mass music rests with the bishop, who usually delegates study of this issue to a staff person who is knowledgeable in music, and that at the parish level, the responsibility for approval or disapproval of music rests with the priest.

Since I play piano in Mass, I get very upset with these threads about Church music. It really bothers me to sit and play and know that there is probably someone out there who is fuming and thinking, “Lounge lizardress!” It makes me not want to play, when posters on this board are telling me that most of the songs that I am playing are hated by Pope Benedict XVI and that it’s only a matter of time before they are ousted.

It make me doubt the wisdom and intelligence of our bishop (Thomas Doran) and his priests–I wonder how it is that THEY haven’t figured out the same inadequacies in the music that these CAF posters have figured out. I wonder if they have figured it out, why they don’t put a stop to the inappropriate music in our diocese.

And this, of course, in my darker soul, makes me wonder if they are wrong about other issues and teachings.

As a convert, the issue of authority is very important to me, actually, supremely important. The main reason I converted from evangelical Protestantism to the Catholic Church is that I believe the Church has authority.

If I believed that the Catholic Church did NOT have authority, I would quit and go back to being Protestant. Why submit to men if they do not have authority from Jesus Christ?.

What say you, wise brother? How should I handled it when these issues about Mass music are brought up?

 

[benedictgal]

JR, glad to see you back on CAF, and I pray that your sickness will be brief and you will feel rested and strong soon.

See the boldface above. I have a very hard time with this in regards to Mass-appropriate music. Several posters on CAF continue to try to convince me and others that according to the “documents,” many of the songs that we currently sing in OF Mass are inappropriate and don’t have a sense of the faith. They make a claim that certain styles of music are inappropriate for Mass. And some posters even claim that instruments other than the pipe organ are inappropriate.

I don’t think the “documents” are clear-cut at all. I believe that the “documents” allow for many different musical styles and instruments, and that the authority for approving Mass music rests with the bishop, who usually delegates study of this issue to a staff person who is knowledgeable in music, and that at the parish level, the responsibility for approval or disapproval of music rests with the priest.

Since I play piano in Mass, I get very upset with these threads about Church music. It really bothers me to sit and play and know that there is probably someone out there who is fuming and thinking, “Lounge lizardress!” It makes me not want to play, when posters on this board are telling me that most of the songs that I am playing are hated by Pope Benedict XVI and that it’s only a matter of time before they are ousted.

It make me doubt the wisdom and intelligence of our bishop (Thomas Doran) and his priests–I wonder how it is that THEY haven’t figured out the same inadequacies in the music that these CAF posters have figured out. I wonder if they have figured it out, why they don’t put a stop to the inappropriate music in our diocese.

And this, of course, in my darker soul, makes me wonder if they are wrong about other issues and teachings.

As a convert, the issue of authority is very important to me, actually, supremely important. The main reason I converted from evangelical Protestantism to the Catholic Church is that I believe the Church has authority.

If I believed that the Catholic Church did NOT have authority, I would quit and go back to being Protestant. Why submit to men if they do not have authority from Jesus Christ?.

What say you, wise brother? How should I handled it when these issues about Mass music are brought up?

The documents are very clear as to what should and should not be done. I think what we may tend to forget is that there is the human element that is involved. The Church is a divine institution run by flawed human beings. Just because one is a bishop or a priest, or even a cardinal, that does not exempt him from making mistakes or from committing liturgical abuses, or allowing them to happen and/or continue.

Have you actually taken the time to read through the documents? Have you taken the time to read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI on this subject? Rather than criticize those who cite the documents, it might not be a bad idea to pick up these same documents and read them for yourself. Then, examine the pieces of music in light of these documents. Pope Benedict XVI is not one to write willy-nilly about music. He is a classically-trained musician. His brother served as the choirmaster for the Regensberg Cathedral. Thus, the Holy Father is very familiar with what should constitute authentic sacred music. Even Pope John Paul II had some serious concerns about sacred music to the point that he said that even today, music used for the Mass needs to be purified. Even the USCCB, in the power point that I cite, also indicates that there are serious problems with what is out there today.

Reading the documents is not a matter of questioning authority. It is making an informed choice. It’s funny. We will read the labels on anything from a BlueBell Ice Cream tub to a Big Mac to see what the calorie intake is, but, when it comes to real matters like liturgy, we don’t seem to want to check into things ourselves.

Rome has issued serious, authoritative documents regulating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. She has also issued documents regarding sacred music. Unless one actually reads them

 

[Lycoming]

I should be sleeping, because I am sick. But I can’t sleep. So I’ll just share.

I agree with you on several points. I have often found on CAF that many of the debates about the liturgy are like the debates with some fundamentalist Protestants. For every citation that you can pull up I can pull out anohter, if you know what I mean. At some point I just say, “Let it go! Let the Sacred Congregation for Liturgy do its job.” The fact that we can read these documents does not guarrantee that our understanding or application of them is correct. It’s certainly OK to share what one has read and to discuss it with others. But it’s quite another thing to try to impose one’s understanding on others, when one does not have the qualifications or the authority to do so. This only causes conflicts, rather than bring people into a closer union with the Lord in the Eucharist.

I also agree that the so called banalities are not always tragic. Some simple examples: female altar servers, communion in the hand, communion standing, not wearing a veil at mass, holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, female lectors, EMHC, all of these are allowed by the Church. Some are allowed as a regular thing and others are allowed under an indult of some kind. There are indults all over the place that we don’t know much about.

For those watching TV this coming Good Friday, you will see the official preacher of the Papal Household deliver his annual Good Friday homily to the Pope and the entire staff at the Vatican. It will be one of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars.

Now watch how silly people can get. The Capuchin Franciscans have a tradition that goes back to the time of St. Francis that prohibits any distinctions between ordained and lay friars. The only time you see a distinction is during mass when the ordained friars wear vestments. Outside of mass they wear the same habit and in the community they all go by the title Brother, Frater or Friar.

The rule for preaching at any liturgy is that the priest must wear at least a stole, an alb and stole is more desireable. The Capuchin friar who preaches to the Papal household wears neither a stole nor an alb. He introduces himself in Italian as Fratello or Fra, meaning Brother. This is an indult that has been granted to the Capuchins for centuries. It is up to the friar and his superior to decide whether he wears a stole and alb or not. Most superiors leave it to the friar.

Last year, I was watching on EWTN. The commentator, I believe it was Raymond Arroyo commented on the lack of stole and alb. He explained the indult. The Msgr. who was seated next to him said that they had deliberately written Father on the subtitle, instead of Brother, because many people would be confused or scandalized if they wrote Brother. I wondered, why would anyone be scandalized? Confused I can understand. That’s the job of the commentator to explain that this is an order that uses the title Brother and they have this inddult to preach without priestly vestments, but scandalized over an 800 year tradition?

We may have gone from the extreme of being sloppy in our worship to being gossipy. I can’t think of another word. I’m sure there is a better one.

Part of fixing the problems that we have is understanding what the Church allows, why, to whom and under what circumstances. If we correct our own thinking, we can feel more comfortable, even if we would like to see something different.

It’s like marriage. I don’t know of any married couple who have 100% agreement on everything. But in good marriages there is tolerance for what is allowed.

Our relationship to the Church is also a covenant relationship, just like marriage. Those things that are not allowed need to be fixed. There are proper channels for the laity to help and there are proper authorities whose job it is to fix these problems. There has to be cooperation and patience. I wonder if we are too impatient. Maybe that’s why we pick up a document from before Vatican II or after Vatican II and push it in some one’s face hoping that this will shut them up and we can move on with life as we want it to be.

If it does not work that way, we become upset, rather than work together to understand.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I do not argue with those who want to argue about the mass. I’ll answer questions, ask questions, listen to opinions, expres mine and let the Holy Spirit renew us.

Fraternally,

JR

What an awesome post!

 

[Lycoming]

JR, glad to see you back on CAF, and I pray that your sickness will be brief and you will feel rested and strong soon.

See the boldface above. I have a very hard time with this in regards to Mass-appropriate music. Several posters on CAF continue to try to convince me and others that according to the “documents,” many of the songs that we currently sing in OF Mass are inappropriate and don’t have a sense of the faith. They make a claim that certain styles of music are inappropriate for Mass. And some posters even claim that instruments other than the pipe organ are inappropriate.

I don’t think the “documents” are clear-cut at all. I believe that the “documents” allow for many different musical styles and instruments, and that the authority for approving Mass music rests with the bishop, who usually delegates study of this issue to a staff person who is knowledgeable in music, and that at the parish level, the responsibility for approval or disapproval of music rests with the priest.

Since I play piano in Mass, I get very upset with these threads about Church music. It really bothers me to sit and play and know that there is probably someone out there who is fuming and thinking, “Lounge lizardress!” It makes me not want to play, when posters on this board are telling me that most of the songs that I am playing are hated by Pope Benedict XVI and that it’s only a matter of time before they are ousted.

It make me doubt the wisdom and intelligence of our bishop (Thomas Doran) and his priests–I wonder how it is that THEY haven’t figured out the same inadequacies in the music that these CAF posters have figured out. I wonder if they have figured it out, why they don’t put a stop to the inappropriate music in our diocese.

And this, of course, in my darker soul, makes me wonder if they are wrong about other issues and teachings.

As a convert, the issue of authority is very important to me, actually, supremely important. The main reason I converted from evangelical Protestantism to the Catholic Church is that I believe the Church has authority.

If I believed that the Catholic Church did NOT have authority, I would quit and go back to being Protestant. Why submit to men if they do not have authority from Jesus Christ?.

What say you, wise brother? How should I handled it when these issues about Mass music are brought up?

What an awesome post #2!

 

[mystified]

JR,
The Orans posture is a priestly gesture in which the celebrant raises his hands in prayer. I think it is part of the instructions to the celebrant printed in red in the Missal. Nowhere do we find that the laiety is to use this action in response to Dominus vobiscum/The Lord be with you, or at the Doxology–recited after the Our Father “for thine is the kingdom, the power…”, nor in response to the final blessing or the dismissal. Or anywhere else in the Mass.

 

[Cat]

The documents are very clear as to what should and should not be done. I think what we may tend to forget is that there is the human element that is involved. The Church is a divine institution run by flawed human beings. Just because one is a bishop or a priest, or even a cardinal, that does not exempt him from making mistakes or from committing liturgical abuses, or allowing them to happen and/or continue.

Have you actually taken the time to read through the documents? Have you taken the time to read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI on this subject? Rather than criticize those who cite the documents, it might not be a bad idea to pick up these same documents and read them for yourself. Then, examine the pieces of music in light of these documents. Pope Benedict XVI is not one to write willy-nilly about music. He is a classically-trained musician. His brother served as the choirmaster for the Regensberg Cathedral. Thus, the Holy Father is very familiar with what should constitute authentic sacred music. Even Pope John Paul II had some serious concerns about sacred music to the point that he said that even today, music used for the Mass needs to be purified. Even the USCCB, in the power point that I cite, also indicates that there are serious problems with what is out there today.

Reading the documents is not a matter of questioning authority. It is making an informed choice. It’s funny. We will read the labels on anything from a BlueBell Ice Cream tub to a Big Mac to see what the calorie intake is, but, when it comes to real matters like liturgy, we don’t seem to want to check into things ourselves.

Rome has issued serious, authoritative documents regulating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. She has also issued documents regarding sacred music. Unless one actually reads them

benedictgal, yes.

You’ve asked the question before, and I have answered, “Yes, I have read the documents.”

I have made a very informed choice.

I felt that as a church musician (pianist) it was my duty to read as many of the documents as I could find about church music. So two years ago, when I was laid up with my first foot surgery, I spend quite a few hours studying over many of the documents that you cite.

I’ll admit that I haven’t been able to read Pope Benedict XVI’s writings because I do not understand them. They are written in true German style, with long, convoluted sentences, and I find that at the end of each sentence, I have no idea what I have just read. So I’ve given up, and I’m waiting for “popular” writers to write “translations” for the ignorant Americans like me who aren’t used to lofty language!

I’m probably not nearly as smart as you.

The fact remains that after I read the documents, I rejoiced, because I interpreted them this way: many different musical styles, including styles of the popular culture, are appropriate for Mass, as well as different instruments. Strictly secular music, or music that is popularly understood as purely secular, is NOT appropriate for the Mass.

What this means to me is that a song like Sandy Patti’s “We Shall Behold Him” is very appropriate for Mass (especially Advent Mass), while a song like “Let It Be” is not appropriate for Mass.

I wasn’t exactly sure what the statements about chant receiving a certain place of honor in the Mass meant, but when I compared this statement with all the rest of the documents, I did NOT conclude that chant was the only music that deserved a place in the Mass.

My interpretation was totally different than yours.

And I believe that this is why neither you nor I have a “right” to state as fact that certain songs or styles are not appropriate.

We have not been given that responsibility by the Church, therefore, I believe that we don’t have the charism to be able to do that job correctly.

It is up to the bishop and his priests, who HAVE been given the charism. The fact that they come to different conclusions than you or I does not make them wrong and us right.

A priest who has pronounced the hymns in the OCP as “good” is not “wrong” or “lacking.”

benedictgal, if you are in a position of liturgical authority in your diocese or in your parish, then I believe that you have been given a portion of that charism, and you are qualified to interpret the documents, at least in your diocese or your parish .

But if you are just another layperson, a musical one, but just a layperson, then you (and I) really don’t have the right to express our opinions as “obvious facts.” We need to submit to the authority of the bishops and priests who are allowing the “inappropriate” songs in their Masses, and stop condemning their choices. This undermines their authority, and places us in a position of authority that we do not merit.

We as laypeople are free to hold opinions about the interpretations of the documents. But to present them as “obvious truth” is simply wrong.

And frankly, doesn’t it bother you that most of the bishops and priests in the U.S. would disagree with your interpretation of the various documents when it comes to music in the Mass? I frankly am a little inclined to side with the clergy here, and if I hold an opinion that is very different than the majority of extremely educated and ordained people, I will conclude that my opinion is probably not totally correct.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about all this.

 

[Lycoming]

"…Reading the documents is not a matter of questioning authority. It is making an informed choice. It’s funny. We will read the labels on anything from a BlueBell Ice Cream tub to a Big Mac to see what the calorie intake is, but, when it comes to real matters like liturgy, we don’t seem to want to check into things ourselves…

I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think quite a few people here read and study quite a few Church documents. They just go about it in different ways with differing backgrounds and resources.

Some rely on their personal interpretation of the documents (“It’s clear! There’s nothing to interpret!”) Others rely on their pastors and bishops to better understand the same documents. Some are fairly ignorant and naive about how the Church operates – where the authority lies and where the decisions are actually made. Others endeavor to understand the Church and realize it’s not comparable to municipal government or private enterprise. Some read the documents with very little training. Others have the benefit of being trained in philosophy and possibly theology. Some show very little tolerance and tact for things they feel are wrong. Others realize that meaningful change will have to take place through and not despite people.

I think a big problem is that the document technicians often don’t realize they aren’t seeing they big picture. In essence they feel they’ve done their homework and want to fix things now! In reality their understanding of a given matter might be superficial at best, or terribly flawed at worst and no matter what, change is going to take time.