The Quality of the Celebration of the Mass has Slowly Improved at my Parish

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ostiarius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That an option may be valid and licit doesn’t mean it is the best option. If a priest thinks that using the shorter forms in Mass is the best option, I’d be very pleased to listen to him explain his rationale. However, all those who have explained their rationales said nothing about the appropriateness of their choices for divine worship; they stressed time. One was concerned even with conflicts with youth sports on Sunday – and shrugged off my follow-up about the commandment to keep the sabbath day holy.

Liturgical worship, though, is exactly that: worship, not some sort of spectator show. And I would question any priest who would accept and promote minimum-standards worship, who would not give his best to God because he is more concerned about youth sports. Those words and actions show misplaced priorities, which is especially troubling in one whose reception of the sacrament of orders should be conforming him ever more closely to Christ the High Priest.

So I’d think we’re doing both ourselves and such priests no favours when we acquiesce to poor liturgy and worldly excuses like this. If nothing else, we ought to wonder if a priest so willing to cut corners, however licit that may be, in order to make room for worldly affairs on a holy day is the type of man we want having care of our souls. Christ has very high standards for us, and, if we want heaven, we should not accept anything less among those whose role it is to help us get there.
 
Last edited:
Of course I’m not calling the Confiteor or the Creed banal. Read the post in which I used that word; I mentioned folk music, felt banners, the lack of reverence for the sacred space.
 
CilladeRoma said:
There might be a good reason, or it might be because he wants the shortest possible Mass.
The decision is his to make though.
Click to expand...
And what is so wrong with the shorter version, to begin with? It may be he feels more people will actually attend if it is shorter. It may be he has more responsibilities than a 24 hour day will allow him to fulfill, so the shorter version is desirable. There could be many reasons why he goes with the shorter version. Why is that so bad?
 
DisorientingSneeze said:
You’ve peaked my curiousity.
What does the first of these two mean?
Click to expand...
After a group of laypeople attended the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress several years ago they returned hot and heavy with the notion that the Book of Gospels (Evangeliary) was to be “enthroned” in full view after the proclamation. They used a music stand for this and it was silly. Most of the time the music stand appeared that it had been accidentally left behind.
 
“Feels?” Let him then go to the historic head-counts and collections taken at recent and historic Sunday and holy-day Masses. In which masses was attendance higher and giving more generous? Correlation, of course, does not imply causation, but looking at the figures, of course controlling for parish population changes, can tell a lot about which services are better attended (forgetting for a moment that the first goal is giving glory to God, not making people attend).

We can feel anything we want to. That doesn’t mean that the available evidence will confirm or validate our feelings.
 
Our Ambo has a spot for the Book of the Gospels to be placed in after the proclamation of the Gospel, and it has been done this way all of my life (close to 50 years).

Not exactly sure why you see this a problem.
 
Yes, I said “feels”. Maybe he feels the shorter mass will bring in more of the people who have nothing to put in the plate. You know, the ones who work three jobs to support their nice, big Catholic families, and are physically exhausted by the time Sunday rolls around (or maybe they have to get to one of their jobs and have time constraints). Maybe he knows something the parishoners who think the long version is the only way to go, don’t.
 
Last edited:
bardegaulois said:
That an option may be valid and licit doesn’t mean it is the best option. If a priest thinks that using the shorter forms in Mass is the best option, I’d be very pleased to listen to him explain his rationale. However, all those who have explained their rationales said nothing about the appropriateness of their choices for divine worship; they stressed time. One was concerned even with conflicts with youth sports on Sunday – and shrugged off my follow-up about the commandment to keep the sabbath day holy.

Liturgical worship, though, is exactly that: worship, not some sort of spectator show. And I would question any priest who would accept and promote minimum-standards worship, who would not give his best to God because he is more concerned about youth sports. Those words and actions show misplaced priorities, which is especially troubling in one whose reception of the sacrament of orders should be conforming him ever more closely to Christ the High Priest.

So I’d think we’re doing both ourselves and such priests no favours when we acquiesce to poor liturgy and worldly excuses like this. If nothing else, we ought to wonder if a priest so willing to cut corners, however licit that may be, in order to make room for worldly affairs on a holy day is the type of man we want having care of our souls. Christ has very high standards for us, and, if we want heaven, we should not accept anything less among those whose role it is to help us get there.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said. I’m by no means a “if it takes longer and has more words it must be better” sort of Catholic. However when the changes were implemented, it truly seemed that every effort was being made to shorten Sunday Mass. That was demoralizing.
 
Thank you for explaining. I’ve never seen or heard of that.
 
If he knows something, then it’s not a feeling. And I’m sure that he would be quite willing to explain to any interested parishioner that a significant number of those fitting the demographic you mention live or work within the parish boundaries, and how his need to see to their spiritual welfare might impact parish life. But a briefer, lower Sunday Mass does not preclude a fuller, more solemn Mass at some other time of the morning – especially as different groups inhabiting the same parish may have different needs, the ultimate end of worship, I reiterate, being the giving of solemn glory to God.
 
Last edited:
OK, if you want a few examples of clearly stated preferences, as authoritatively declared by the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium:

36.1: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Not “may be”; “is to be”

116: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” It’s rather difficult to mistake the wording on this option.

There clearly are preferred options, but they are broadly ignored, madly enough, in the name of the “spirit” of the Council that actually authored them.
 
That does sound like a nice change.
 
Last edited:
Goodness. Question: why would one remain in the parish where one was unhappy for 20 years, instead of seeking out one without the listed abuses?
 
LisaB said:
Goodness. Question: why would one remain in the parish where one was unhappy for 20 years, instead of seeking out one without the listed abuses?
Click to expand...
GOOD question! ALL the parishes in my deanery except for one (Franciscan run) were awful. There was no place close that I could go that was any better.

The Franciscan parish is a drive, but I still went there once a month as a sanity check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top