A
awfulthings9
Guest
Who says I’m not?
And, I can’t help but notice the abuses - they are so bold. I don’t show up looking for them, but it is hard to missing a couple of teenagers in dance clothes performing in front of you.
- Status
And, I can’t help but notice the abuses - they are so bold. I don’t show up looking for them, but it is hard to missing a couple of teenagers in dance clothes performing in front of you.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Oh, come on, friend, we can do better than to throw false dichotamies at one another and to resort to name calling.
I could easily ask you if you are there to worship or to help Satan sneak corruption in through the back door. That would be out of line and presumptious of me. Even though we disagree, I won’t presume to have you figured out. I don’t even presume to have the deacon figured out, which is why I admitted possible confusion on my part. You seem to have me nailed, though.
And “my opinion” is based off exhortations from the church to proper liturgy. If there is a document that encourages us to ignore such abuses, I will kindly sit down and clam up.
Just a question for clarification - would you cry “abuse, abuse” if you showed up to your parish and the mass looked like this? If not, explain why? If so, please let me know where the line is between a valid concern and the work of a “pharisee” or liturgical policeman.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Yes, and about not being an accessory to sin. Silence is one of those ways.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Oh please, the puppet Mass again. New material please, this one is really getting quite boring.
If you aren’t a part of the “small community”, why stick your nose in someone else’s beef? If they are big enough and knowledgeable enough about the faith to go about complaining about alleged abuses, aren’t they big enough to take care of themselves?
Or, if you ARE part of the “small community”…you’ve already stated your complaints, the clergy involved has referred to you, directly or indirectly, as “pharisees”…perhaps there’s a message there? Perhaps the sermon did get under your skin a little because it really hit close to home?
Or, the homily was consistient of the readings of today, and you’re just being paranoid. Based on your description, the homily really is rather on-target.
The question is, what spiritual or emotional gain do you hope to obtain by antagonizing these particular clergy members? And, is that expected gain really worth the price you pay?
If you aren’t a part of the “small community”, why stick your nose in someone else’s beef? If they are big enough and knowledgeable enough about the faith to go about complaining about alleged abuses, aren’t they big enough to take care of themselves?
Or, if you ARE part of the “small community”…you’ve already stated your complaints, the clergy involved has referred to you, directly or indirectly, as “pharisees”…perhaps there’s a message there? Perhaps the sermon did get under your skin a little because it really hit close to home?
Or, the homily was consistient of the readings of today, and you’re just being paranoid. Based on your description, the homily really is rather on-target.
The question is, what spiritual or emotional gain do you hope to obtain by antagonizing these particular clergy members? And, is that expected gain really worth the price you pay?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
You avoided the question. What would you say? Would you complain?Oh please, the puppet Mass again. New material please, this one is really getting quite boring.
If you aren’t a part of the “small community”, why stick your nose in someone else’s beef? If they are big enough and knowledgeable enough about the faith to go about complaining about alleged abuses, aren’t they big enough to take care of themselves?
Or, if you ARE part of the “small community”…you’ve already stated your complaints, the clergy involved has referred to you, directly or indirectly, as “pharisees”…perhaps there’s a message there? Perhaps the sermon did get under your skin a little because it really hit close to home?
Or, the homily was consistient of the readings of today, and you’re just being paranoid. Based on your description, the homily really is rather on-target.
The question is, what spiritual or emotional gain do you hope to obtain by antagonizing these particular clergy members? And, is that expected gain really worth the price you pay?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Very true. It is called being in the proper disposition. Distractions can very well take away from the full graces that would otherwise be bestowed upon us from participating at Mass, either form.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Avoided WHAT question? The silly puppet Mass link? As I was not there, and have no idea under what circumstances or conditions said activity took place, I really have no comment.
I think some of you are so fixated on that video, you’ve lost your sense of reason. One video clip does not a Church or Mass make. One video clip does not serve to define any and all activities within the Church or Mass form.
Would I complain? Dunno. I would have to be there and understand what was taking place in the context of the whole.
I could show you a video of cops tasing someone too…but without “the rest of the story” (like maybe the guy is spaced out on crack and pulled a knife on the cops), that video might be misleading as well.
But hey, you obviously feel that you are qualified to dissemenate and critique the HMC and her clergy, and nobody is gonna convince you otherwise…so carry on…if you really think your complaints are gonna punch your ticket to Peter’s gate.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
T
The_Prodigal
Guest
I can’t take credit for the following observation; it is Amy-Jill Levine’s.
In Luke 18:9-14, the Pharisee is faulted for being overly pious and holier-than-thou. The irony is that if you accuse someone of sanctimony or of being unduly fastidious, you are yourself committing the Pharisaical mistake of sanctimony.
In Luke 18:9-14, the Pharisee is faulted for being overly pious and holier-than-thou. The irony is that if you accuse someone of sanctimony or of being unduly fastidious, you are yourself committing the Pharisaical mistake of sanctimony.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Again, avoiding the question. You were likewise not at the event I attended. You did not hear the sermon, nor do you know the whole history or sequence of events, which could never be captured in a few posts, yet you did not hesitate (post number two) to jump all over me, assuming you had my situation figured out. I never asked for advice on whether or not I should react, but advice as to the content of my reaction. You cast judgement on my situation, but refuse to on the Puppet Mass?
Once again, anyone who disagrees with you is hit with insults. Either name calling or an insult to one’s sense of reason, you’ve done everything but address the valid points.
Who said it did? I certainly didn’t. I gave it as an example of an illicit Mass to ask if you react. Once again, it isn’t fair to put words into one’s mouth and attack them, rather than the real posts. Par for the course, though. You’ve avoided points, called names, and set up straw men throughout this thread … everything but give the advice I asked for in the beginning.
In fact, you’ve invented a rule that doesn’t exist in the Church, which is that we should not attempt to protect the liturgy, unless we are clergy. Then, you hold me to this made-up rule. Isn’t this what the Pharisees were guilty of?
Yes, once again, you have my situation all figured out. Even though you weren’t there and presume that, not only do you know the context, but you know what’s going on in my heart.
So maybe the Call to Action people were spaced out on crack? Okay, I’ll buy that.
Nope. Not Holy Mother Church. I’m going specifically by her norms and instructions. I would never presume to know better than our Holy Spirit guided leaders.
Yep. Some of them. And if, by his own admission, a clergy disregards the instructions for the Mass, I will absolutely critique that.
The deacon might. I might very well have misunderstood him, and expressed that in the letter. But I didn’t come here to be convinced otherwise. You jumped in and presumed that was your job.
I will.
Grace, through my cooperation with faith, is going to punch my ticket. I never said that correcting a wrong would get me into Heaven. I wouldn’t assume that it would. Likewise, all you’ve done this whole thread is advocated that we should ignore liturgical abuse. I would never assume that this, which could be construed as cooperating with sin, would deny you entrance into Heaven. While you appear to know my heart, I don’t presume to know yours. However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to only do what we feel is right if it is going to “punch our ticket”. Helping the crippled boy pick up his books won’t “punch my ticket”, but I’ll do it anyway.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Yes, I’ve already been accused of “complaining about the complainers”
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Your original post was quite clear.
Let’s try this from the top…The sermon you heard today, was probably quite similar to hundreds or even thousands of other homilies today. After all, isn’t it Church policy to preach on the readings of the day?
So, what we have here seems to be another case of the laity attempting to usurp the authority of the clergy.
First, with the complaints about the alleged abuses that resulted in the word “pharisee” being bandied about. Yes, I have little doubt that our clergy uses that phrase often in reference to those who feel the need to constantly criticize the Church and her clergy.
Second, we have (by your own description) a homily that is consistient with the day’s readings. However, based on previous interaction with said clergy, you chose to interpret said homily as flawed in some way.
Any way you slice it, this entire chain of events is the result of laity challenging the authority of the clergy…and of course, unilaterally refusing to accept idea(s) other than that YOU are completely in the “right” and the involved clergy are “wrong”…wading in deeper and deeper, until there’s no turning back…
A
awfulthings9
Guest
First, ethelzguy, let me say that this was a very reasonable post, with very respectful challenges to what I’ve said. I hope we can continue in that spirit, and that I can keep the same tone.
So, all you have to do is show me that document which says I am out of bounds in asking for clarification. And I’m not being sarcastic. Produce something to back up your strong claim, and I’ll back down quickly. If you can’t, at least respect that we have a difference of opinion and allow my thread to continue on the original post, which was to ask advice on my content, not advice on whether I should initiate or not. You’ve hijacked the thread, which has completely taken it off track.
Probably very similar. Yes, I’ll agree. I have no problem with him preaching on Pharisees, my issue was with the false dichotomy he apparently set up, that it is an all or nothing thing. But no, I don’t think it was directed specifically at me. The “very insulting” line was in reference to his definition of a Pharisee, not my understanding that it was directed at me.
Yes, but the Church has made it clear that this is within our responsibilities. I would never question the Church on dogmatic teachings, but this was not the case. Clergy are not protected by the charism of infallibility. You may disagree, and if you can point out a document that shows I’m overstepping my bounds, I will apologize to you and to him. Until then, you are setting up a rule that doesn’t exist, that we cannot privately (which is why I withheld his name and our parish information) ask for clarification. If you would do differently, so be it.
But I don’t. Those who know me (and reading my other posts can demonstrate), I’m very hard-core in support of the Church and her clergy. However, deacons are not protected from error, and if I spoke error in a public way, I would want someone correcting me privately so I could reconsider.
Or maybe it isn’t. I might have missed something. I might be in error. I’m trying to open up conversation that will shed light on what appeared to be a message inconsistent with the teachings of the Church.
I’m not refusing to accept other ideas. The problem is, while many on this thread have presented Church documents and Scripture to support my actions, you’ve presented nothing but your own opinion to support yours. We can agree to disagree all we want, but as soon as you present something that trumps the weight of what has been presented in this thread (and others, such as the thread on the sister giving the homily), I simply have to submit to the Church has written about the responsibility of lay people AND clergy to protect the reverence of the Mass.Any way you slice it, this entire chain of events is the result of laity challenging the authority of the clergy…and of course, unilaterally refusing to accept idea(s) other than that YOU are completely in the “right” and the involved clergy are “wrong”…wading in deeper and deeper, until there’s no turning back…
So, all you have to do is show me that document which says I am out of bounds in asking for clarification. And I’m not being sarcastic. Produce something to back up your strong claim, and I’ll back down quickly. If you can’t, at least respect that we have a difference of opinion and allow my thread to continue on the original post, which was to ask advice on my content, not advice on whether I should initiate or not. You’ve hijacked the thread, which has completely taken it off track.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Now, for what it is worth, my wife has asked me to leave the computer alone the rest of the evening so we can get packed for our trip tomorrow and Tuesday. I wish all a restful start to the week. I’ll read any additional posts when I return on Wed.
G
GemmaRose
Guest
The following is a more or less blanket statement rather than a direct answer to the OP since there is no way to comment on the OP without specific details such as the exact abuse(s), is the abuse(s) committed weekly or monthly or yearly, etc. etc.
I would venture a guess that our Great, Loving, Merciful and Almighty Lord doesn’t give a hoot about what chalices are made out of.
I would even go further and hazard a guess that He who so enjoyed the company of sinners and small children alike, is probably enamoured with those young folk who wish to express their love for Him using their entire bodies, emulating David who danced before His Presence in the Ark of the Covenant.
In addition, I seriously doubt that He gets offended if those dancers wear dance clothes, since He is the One who created the bodies underneath, and He created those bodies naked, and looked at all of His creation and called it “very good.”
And I’m sure that He equally enjoys a group of first graders singing “His Banner Over Me is Love” or a well trained choir singing Gregorian chant.
It appears that we have all, from the Magisterium on down, forgotten that the Sabbath was made for us. It was not made for God. God doesn’t need it. God doesn’t need us. God doesn’t need anything. He created the Sabbath for us so that we would take a day of rest and use it to worship Him because we need to worship Him. He does not need our worship… He wants it. He wants it because He loves us and He knows that we have an innate need to worship Him.
We waste precious opportunities to worship, precious moments of worship, worrying about the little things, judging others’ motives and actions… making rules and running to report the slightest infractions of those rules… when all He wants is our love and that we love each other.
How long will it be until we believe Him that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and that HE is Lord, even of the Sabbath?
P
patrick457
Guest
Take heart at remembering that Jesus is closer to the Pharisees (P’rushim, ‘The Separated’) than the Sadducees (Tsdokim); in fact:
-Some of Jesus’ teachings echo Pharisaical beliefs (such as the existence of angels and demons, the resurrection and judgment on the last day, the coming of a Messiah, the necessity for preserving and keeping the Law, to name a few).
-You commonly see Him dining with a Pharisee but never with a Sadducee.
-Sadducees condemned Jesus to death while a Pharisee (John 3:1) helped bury Jesus.
-Some converts to Christianity (like Paul, for example) came from the Pharisaical party; by contrast, the New Testament does not record a Sadducee converting to the Christian cause.
-Jesus even commends the Pharisees’ teachings, but warns against their examples as they do not practice what they preach.
The Sadducees, apparently were modernists who saw much value in Greek philosophy. They were materialists who did not believe in angels or demons; they did not believe in an afterlife, let alone a resurrection or a judgment; they did not look for a Messiah, and they believed that the Law had to be adapted to modern times and the current state of knowledge.
Thus, all in all, I think it’s better to be called Pharisee than Sadducee.
B
Brendan
Guest
He cares about disobedience to the Magisterium of His Church. Here is what the Holy Spirit said at Vatican I
So when people disregard what the Pope has to say, not just on faith and morals, but on the disciples and governance of His Church, the Holy Spirt DOES get upset, because it is a direct violation of what the Spirt articulated to the Church.
Is the Holy Spirit wrong?
Yep, and never missed an opportunity to tell a sinner to repent.
Kinda like what we are doing here.
Yep, outside of Church and outside of the Liturgy, just like David did
And how did Christ ask us to celebrate the Sabbath?, by following the rules set out by those in authority.
Mt 23:1-3
P
peregrinus_WA
Guest
Sound like they are trying to silence you. Yes, some of the abuses may be minor, but you have stated a couple of major ones. Remember, just be civilized in the letter.
Saying that, do not stop with just the priest and deacon. The tactics being used show a penchant for retaliation. CC the Bishop on this and state so in the letter. This may stop or lessen the possible retaliation by the priest and deacon.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Well, for what my advice is worth, join the Una Voce chapter in your area. You might be the one voice they need to fill up a “stable group.” Depends on how hellbent the bishop is when it comes to disobeying the Pope. Don’t try to affect the OF. Just keep soldiering for an EF, if you are inclined to suffer from abuses. Ignore the abuses at your Church. Complaining about abuses is only going to earn you disdain. I don’t know why, but it’s true. People think you’re just suppose to turn a blind eye. Do so, and go the EF the first chance you get and don’t look back.
Just my advice.
I really wish every diocese was as awesome as my own.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I have one last question, then I’ll let this go.
Personally, based on the homily I heard at my Mass and what you have shared about yours, I don’t see an issue with you deacon’s position.
That being said, I would ask (and I’m not being sarcastic, really)
Are you certain that the homily you heard didn’t carry additional “bite” from your point of view, based on previous goings on (abuse complaints/pharisee name-calling)?
I mean, if I had been involved in that, then heard that homily, I may have had the same feelings as you did. But NOT having been involved, I really can’t see the issue with the content.
Or, in another light…Let’s say, that we went to a TLM at a cathedral in St. Louis, and the Bishop was presiding and gave the same homily. Would you still see it as insulting?
And, no, I’m not picking on a TLM either, I’m just trying to cast this in a different light. No previous “issue” that would alter ones mindset prior to heaing said homily.
TBL
- Status