Troubling experience at Daily Mass

[Marysann]

Benedictgal, don’t be sorry for having attended that Mass. You may have helped that priest more that you know. He probably never thought that anyone realized that he was not following the rubrics. He may be more careful now. The next person who notices this may not charitably correct him. He may report him to the bishop!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, during an FDLC meeting that I attended, Msgr. Moroney, then an official with the former Bishops Committee on Liturgy, told us that we were to use the Spanish-language Roman Missal approved for Mexico. “Christ has died” does not appear in that Roman Missal. When I asked the CDWDS about the ilicit parts of the Mass back in December, I posed the question to them (for additional clarification) and they told me that this innovation was not allowed.

I merely noted that it makes some sense why the priest might have thought it was ok to do. Either way, it disappears in a year so that’ll fix that (unless, of course, parishes continue doing it anyways).

 

[benedictgal]

I merely noted that it makes some sense why the priest might have thought it was ok to do. Either way, it disappears in a year so that’ll fix that (unless, of course, parishes continue doing it anyways).

However, we have some priests from Mexico, so they should be familiar with this particular Roman Missal and what is and what is not allowed.

 

[Like]

benedictgal, are you referring to the whole acclamation of:

“Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”?

My parish recites this every Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, are you referring to the whole acclamation of:

“Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”?

My parish recites this every Mass.

Yes, but, this does not exist in Spanish, let alone any other language but English.

 

[Like]

Yes, but, this does not exist in Spanish, let alone any other language but English.

Thanks

 

[miniquedoes]

I know at out church we do sing the English version in Spanish. I think it may be the Missa Luna but goes “Cristo ha muerto, ya resucitado, Cristo venta de nuevo.”

 

[benedictgal]

I know at out church we do sing the English version in Spanish. I think it may be the Missa Luna but goes “Cristo ha muerto, ya resucitado, Cristo venta de nuevo.”

The composer should have known better because what he did was compose an ilicit setting. In fact, when I met him, I called him out on it privately. He really did not have an answer to give me. A copy of this particular setting was included in what I sent to the CDWDS.

Before Mass today (at another parish), I spoke to a deacon friend of mine and told him about my experience this past Monday. I was rather surprised when he did not seem to think that faithful adherence to the text was such a huge issue. He told me that it’s our spiriit of prayer that counts. I told him that while this is important, the Church notes that fideility is important. RS specifically states in several sections that we must adhere to the texts of the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium stresses the point, stating that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right to make edits to the Mass. Inasmuch as there are some times in the Roman Missal when the phrase “these or similar words” is used, this does not apply to the entire text. I explained that when we start fiddling around with the text, we disrupt the unitiy of the Mass and confuse the faithful. He started to understand.

Sadly, though, as I have seen in parts of my diocese, the attitude of fidelity to the norms is more along the lines of an after-thought.

 

[jmcrae]

The composer should have known better because what he did was compose an ilicit setting. In fact, when I met him, I called him out on it privately. He really did not have an answer to give me. A copy of this particular setting was included in what I sent to the CDWDS.

Before Mass today (at another parish), I spoke to a deacon friend of mine and told him about my experience this past Monday. I was rather surprised when he did not seem to think that faithful adherence to the text was such a huge issue. He told me that it’s our spiriit of prayer that counts. I told him that while this is important, the Church notes that fideility is important. RS specifically states in several sections that we must adhere to the texts of the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium stresses the point, stating that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right to make edits to the Mass. Inasmuch as there are some times in the Roman Missal when the phrase “these or similar words” is used, this does not apply to the entire text. I explained that when we start fiddling around with the text, we disrupt the unitiy of the Mass and confuse the faithful. He started to understand.

Sadly, though, as I have seen in parts of my diocese, the attitude of fidelity to the norms is more along the lines of an after-thought.

I once worked with a very wise man who told me, “Most of the time, creativity is an obstacle to progress. Creative people know this better than anyone, which is why they are fanatical about following the rules, most of the time.”

You can be sure that when someone is “getting creative” it’s more likely to be because he has no idea what he is really doing, than because he has encountered a situation that has no known standard response (which is the only situation in real life, or in art, that ever requires creativity).

 

[SMHW]

The composer should have known better because what he did was compose an ilicit setting. In fact, when I met him, I called him out on it privately. He really did not have an answer to give me. A copy of this particular setting was included in what I sent to the CDWDS.

I have no idea about the setting to which you refer… But a lot of settings were composed as bi-lingual settings where it was anticipated that the acclamation would be sung in Spanish and repeated in English or vice verse. I suppose it was expected that Cristo Ha Muerto would be included in the much anticipated (in the 1990s and early 2000s) Spanish Sacramentary for the United States. (The attitude of my diocese seems to be that if a song or acclamation was ever allowed (even on an experimental basis) it can be used at least until the new English Missal is promulgated.)

Before Mass today (at another parish), I spoke to a deacon friend of mine and told him about my experience this past Monday. I was rather surprised when he did not seem to think that faithful adherence to the text was such a huge issue. He told me that it’s our spiriit of prayer that counts.

I’m kind of anticipating your response to my earlier words. The deacon’s response does not surprise me in the least. This casual attitude about texts is what was taught in the seminaries in this country starting (in some places) in the 1960s. And in the seminaries where it was not taught the seminarians were still tuned into the message from the seminaries where it was taught. The priests and bishops that came out of that time period are the ones who trained today’s deacons. Many of today’s composers were also seminary students.

People who hold the belief that strict adherence to guidelines* is not important* and that innovation can be virtuous are not easily swayed by documents that say strict adherence to the rules is required. Rather such people pick and choose the parts of documents that support their core belief in picking and choosing.

I’m not suggesting that you should not have spoken to the deacon. I’m just surprised that you are surprised by the deacon’s attitude.

I told him that while this is important, the Church notes that fideility is important. RS specifically states in several sections that we must adhere to the texts of the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium stresses the point, stating that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right to make edits to the Mass. Inasmuch as there are some times in the Roman Missal when the phrase “these or similar words” is used, this does not apply to the entire text. I explained that when we start fiddling around with the text, we disrupt the unitiy of the Mass and confuse the faithful. He started to understand.

I’m not disputing this.

What I do think is that there are a lot of bishops, priests, composers, liturgists, etc. who are thoroughly convinced that RS and Sacrosanctum Concilium were mistakes and as such do not hold them in high regard.

 

[benedictgal]

I have no idea about the setting to which you refer… But a lot of settings were composed as bi-lingual settings where it was anticipated that the acclamation would be sung in Spanish and repeated in English or vice verse. I suppose it was expected that Cristo Ha Muerto would be included in the much anticipated (in the 1990s and early 2000s) Spanish Sacramentary for the United States. (The attitude of my diocese seems to be that if a song or acclamation was ever allowed (even on an experimental basis) it can be used at least until the new English Missal is promulgated.)

I’m kind of anticipating your response to my earlier words. The deacon’s response does not surprise me in the least. This casual attitude about texts is what was taught in the seminaries in this country starting (in some places) in the 1960s. And in the seminaries where it was not taught the seminarians were still tuned into the message from the seminaries where it was taught. The priests and bishops that came out of that time period are the ones who trained today’s deacons. Many of today’s composers were also seminary students.

People who hold the belief that strict adherence to guidelines* is not important* and that innovation can be virtuous are not easily swayed by documents that say strict adherence to the rules is required. Rather such people pick and choose the parts of documents that support their core belief in picking and choosing.

I’m not suggesting that you should not have spoken to the deacon. I’m just surprised that you are surprised by the deacon’s attitude.

I’m not disputing this.

What I do think is that there are a lot of bishops, priests, composers, liturgists, etc. who are thoroughly convinced that RS and Sacrosanctum Concilium were mistakes and as such do not hold them in high regard.

I was surprised by the deacon’s attitude because I have known him for four years. It was a little bit of a shock because I did not expect it from him.

It’s almost as though there is a “relaxed” attitude about the rubrics. But, at some point, something has got to give. A line has to be drawn in the dirt, so to speak. It’s just frustrating.

My dad’s parish has the same problem.

 

[georgewithfaith]

Benedictgal,

If you wish to do so, put your concerns in writing to the priest. If he ignores you, kindly send him another letter but this time copy his Bishop. If you are ignored again, report it to the Vatican. As Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple we must follow suit and work as best we can to throw irreverent priests out of our Church.

 

[benedictgal]

The priest in question showed up at our parish as a substitute. It was not very good. He started the Mass by saying “Good evening” and it went downhill from there. He then said “The Lord be with each and everyone of you.” He left the ambo and preached the homily in the aisle (confusing our deacon). Then, instead of the recitation of the Creed, he decided that we would renew our baptismal promises (did not use the Roman Missal for the text) and then had us repeat after him “This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church and we are proud to profess it.” The faithful were a little in shock.

At least, when it came to the EP, he did not change the Memorial Acclamation. However, at the Memorial itself, he launched off on his own edits. He then made his own edits on the “Ecce Agnus Dei.” After Communion, he had a member of the Neocatechumenal Way (a seminarian) come and invite people to their meeting. The seminarian later told me that he was waiting until after the Post-Communion prayer to come up and make his pitch. After the seminarian talked, he made everyone recite the Anima Christi and then a prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola and told them that they had to say it during Mass. After the post-Communion prayer, he then said, “The Lord be with each and everyone of you.” It was not a good experience.

 

[jmcrae]

The priest in question showed up at our parish as a substitute. It was not very good. He started the Mass by saying “Good evening” and it went downhill from there. He then said “The Lord be with each and everyone of you.” He left the ambo and preached the homily in the aisle (confusing our deacon). Then, instead of the recitation of the Creed, he decided that we would renew our baptismal promises (did not use the Roman Missal for the text) and then had us repeat after him “This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church and we are proud to profess it.” The faithful were a little in shock.

At least, when it came to the EP, he did not change the Memorial Acclamation. However, at the Memorial itself, he launched off on his own edits. He then made his own edits on the “Ecce Agnus Dei.” After Communion, he had a member of the Neocatechumenal Way (a seminarian) come and invite people to their meeting. The seminarian later told me that he was waiting until after the Post-Communion prayer to come up and make his pitch. After the seminarian talked, he made everyone recite the Anima Christi and then a prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola and told them that they had to say it during Mass. After the post-Communion prayer, he then said, “The Lord be with each and everyone of you.” It was not a good experience.

I’m guessing he must be a Jesuit? I have sometimes seen Jesuits do this sort of thing. I have no idea if they are under some kind of an exemption that permits them to do these things.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m guessing he must be a Jesuit? I have sometimes seen Jesuits do this sort of thing. I have no idea if they are under some kind of an exemption that permits them to do these things.

No. He is not a Jesuit. He is diocesan. I am not aware of Jesuits, or any priest, for that matter, having an indult to make wholesale edits to the Mass. It is actually forbidden under Sacrosanctum Concilium, the GIRM and RS. Now, the Roman Missal does have a clause “these or similar words”; however, it only applies to very few instances. What I witnessed tonight (and on Labor Day) certainly did not fit the criteria.

 

[jmcrae]

No. He is not a Jesuit. He is diocesan. I am not aware of Jesuits, or any priest, for that matter, having an indult to make wholesale edits to the Mass. It is actually forbidden under Sacrosanctum Concilium, the GIRM and RS. Now, the Roman Missal does have a clause “these or similar words”; however, it only applies to very few instances. What I witnessed tonight (and on Labor Day) certainly did not fit the criteria.

I share your consternation - this is odd, indeed, then.

 

[Spirithound]

Then, instead of the recitation of the Creed, he decided that we would renew our baptismal promises (did not use the Roman Missal for the text)…

I wonder if this could be allowed since the Creed is contained in the baptismal promises?
My parish does this when a baptism is celebrated (which I know is according to the rubrics).

 

[rosary_kat]

Unfortunately, I do not think that anything will come of this.

Don’t be so sure. You gave him something to ponder in a humble and charitable manner. It may do more than you think now. We never know what seeds we plant. Or how long it might take them to grow. It seems you followed St. Peter’s advice admirably.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m actually not surprised that even after the first experience there was still a lot of ‘innovation’ from this particular priest (whom I’ll be sure to pray for today).

Over the last 40 years or so I have seen many many priests celebrate Mass. Some of them are very ‘literate’ and these were usually the ones who started making the most changes to Mass in order to make it more ‘personal’ and ‘beautiful.’ While (deo gratias!) many of them have in the last couple of years come ‘back’ to a ‘say the black, do the red’ out of obedience to the directive of their bishops, there are still a few who stubbornly insist on a half-dozen or dozen ‘changes’ outside the acceptable ones. Quite often they are older and indeed very popular priests with the segment of what I call the ‘gray panther Catholics’ --the Catholics who were all either hippies or rebels in the 1960s themselves. NOT that these people were or are necessarily all wrong then or now, but that while they have their hearts in the right place --seeking justice, peace, love and caring–they tend to think that only justice, peace, love and caring–and only what they themselves think is said justice, peace, love and caring and only in the WAY they think is justice, peace, love and caring is what MATTERS. So because they started 35 years ago to ‘reach out’ and come around the altar and all recite the Eucharistic prayers, that to them is what Mass is all about. And despite the fact that the rubrics do not allow it, that practice now means more to them that what the actual Mass itself means.

So for this priest and those like him, who have perhaps decades of practices built up and inculcated, who have decades of being ‘praised’ for their innovations and who have their own pride at their literary abilities – to be told that what they did is not truly valid and should no longer be done - has a tremendously humbling effect. And humility is a virtue which is very rare today.

For this priest to stop with the ‘experiments’ would not only mean that he admits, even if just to himself, that he was wrong and needs to change in a way that seems to him BACKWARDS, and ‘counterprogressive’, would probably also mean that he would ‘lose’ the **admiration of those who support him in his current wrongs. **

That is a lot to expect from any person.

And it’s not surprising that, before he actually does ‘give in’ and submit to the Lord, that he would not at first, in a reaction and denial, go even further with his experiments and additions, for a while. Just to PROVE that he was right, that he is right, that what he is doing is perfectly fine.

Keep on being charitable and truthful, and praying. . .for often after that denial will come understanding, acceptance of truth, and true change for the better.

 

[benedictgal]

I wonder if this could be allowed since the Creed is contained in the baptismal promises?
My parish does this when a baptism is celebrated (which I know is according to the rubrics).

There were no baptisms during the Mass. What was also very problematic was that he had the faithful repeat after him the part that corresponds to him.