Just today I was reviewing a proofread version of my forthcoming book Mass Revision: Your Essential Guide to the Changes in the Liturgy, which is scheduled to come out in just a few months. It seemed like an opportune time to do a post about liturgy, so here goes . . .
There’s a passage in C. S. Lewis somewhere in which he talks about liturgy being like dancing. As a dancer, dance instructor, and dance caller (I call square dances, contra dances, etc.) I recognize just how apt the comparison he makes is. What he says is that learning the liturgy is like learning to dance. At first you are focused on the mechanics and trying to get them right. When you’re new to the liturgy it’s rather like dancing and having to think about what your feet are doing. The result is clumsy and not particularly pleasant. But there comes a point when the mechanics of the dance becomes second nature and you don’t have to think about it, you can just do it. This is the point at which the dance becomes smooth, flowing, and enjoyable. You have been freed from having to think about the mechanics of individual moves so that you can grasp the overall flow and pattern of the dance.
The same thing happens when learning liturgy. If you’re a convert, as I am, or if you’re old enough to have clear memories of the liturgical reform that followed Vatican II, then there’s a stage in your life where you had to make a conscious effort to learn the liturgy. You didn’t just grow up with it. At first it was a awkward, clumsy process (“Is this the part where we stand up?”, “What’s the next word in the Creed?”, “Am I supposed to say ‘Thanks be to God’ or ‘Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ’ now?”). But eventually it became second nature and, as in the dancing example, you were freed from the burden of having to think about the mechanics of individual actions and your mind could rise to contemplate the overall flow and pattern of the liturgy, the meaning of the symbols it contains, and the theological truths it expresses.
Even if you’re not a convert or someone who clearly remembers the liturgical reform, you’ll be getting something of that experience come this November, when the new translation of the Roman Missal goes into effect and—although the fundamental structure of the Mass will be the same—lots of individual prayers will be . . . different. And there’ll be a period of time where you have to think about the mechanics of the liturgy (“Am I supposed to say ‘And also with you’ or ‘And with your spirit’?”, “Oops! I almost said ‘Was born of the Virgin Mary’ instead of ‘Was incarnate of the Virgin Mary’!”, “Wow, you mean we’re supposed to stand after the priest finishes this invitation, not before it, like we’ve been doing the last ten years?”). But soon this phase will pass and you’ll be able to think about higher matters, like how the liturgy more profoundly expresses certain truths not that it’s not encumbered with a dumbed-down, 1970s translation.
Or whatever else you choose to think about at Mass.
The point I’m making is that changing the expressions people are used to will jerk them out of a contemplative mode and land them smack in the middle of a mechanical thought process—at least until the change becomes second nature. For this reason, you shouldn’t make changes lightly.
All the liturgical loosey-gooseyness of the last 40 years has had the effect of jerking the faithful out of a contemplative mode and putting them in other modes of thought (confusion, bewilderment, suspicion, rage).
I understand and appreciate the need for the new translation of the Mass, but it will be an adjustment. It will take some getting used to.
But one shouldn’t make arbitrary changes for no good reason, even when they are permitted by liturgical law.
A good example is the response used in the prayer of the faithful. In the United States the response is commonly “Lord, hear our prayer” (although some seem to mishear it as “Lord, hear our prayers”; a minor liturgical mondegreen).
This response is not mandated by liturgical law, and so it can be changed. That makes changing it not a liturgical abuse in the proper sense (a violation of liturgical law), but just because it can be changed doesn’t mean it should be changed. Changing it can result in the faithful being jerked out of their usual, prayerful mode of thought and into an awkward state where they have to think about the new response and even wondering whether it fits with the things being prayed for. This results in Bad Liturgy.
Take, for example, the practice of one of the local parishes near me. During certain liturgical seasons and on certain liturgical days they alter “Lord, hear our prayer” to something else.
For example, last Sunday (baptism of the Lord), they were using “Lord, send us your Spirit.” You might think that would be more appropriate for Pentecost, but because the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism, they were using it there.
And since the action of the Holy Spirit is involved in every answered prayer, asking God to send the Holy Spirit is something that can be an appropriate response to any legitimate prayer intention.
But “Lord, send us your Spirit” is not the familiar response and it snatches the contemplative, prayerful mindset away and forces the congregation to think about the mechanics of what they’ve just been told to say.
Worse is what they were using on Epiphany, when the response they said to use was “O come let us adore him.”
Not only is response unfamiliar, it’s also a line from a well-known song (meaning that people are going to be thinking about the song), and it’s just too cutsey by half.
Worst of all, it is not a suitable response to all possible petitions. For example:
Lector: That God may guide our president as he makes decisions affecting the welfare of our nation.
People: O come let us adore him.
Now, that specific petition wasn’t one the parish used, but I’ve heard similarly problematic petitions used with “O come let us adore him” in the past.
Like I said, I can’t say that it’s a liturgical abuse in the technical sense to do this, but I can say that it’s Bad Liturgy, and thus it’s one of my liturgical pet peeves.
What are some of yours?
Comments
Post a Comment
The same thing happens all over the world, every time there’s a new Bishop (or a new Pope). For all my conscious life, until 2005 the Eucharistic Canon included the phrase, “For John Paul, our Pope…” It still pulls me out of my contemplation every now and then, because the familiar rhythm of the prayer has been altered.
This is what makes the Rosary such a useful tool to induce the state of contemplation. Familiarity, rhythm, and a source of occupation for one’s body are all necessary aids to remove that which distracts from dwelling upon the things not of this world.
ok- here’s my pet peeve: I’ve been trying to pay attention to the changes that are coming to the liturgy, and I understand and can even get behind almost all of them. Generally speaking, the most accurate translation is a *good* thing. But I will be very sad to hear “Lord I am not worthy to receive you” changed to “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”. It’s clunky, inelegant, and robs the moment of its poetic connection to the Eucharist. It’s TOO literal.
On a side note, when I heard they were considering the changes I asked a priest who I could talk to about this particular update and he scolded me for thinking “that I might have a say in the matter”. Not exactly the most charitable response I ever received from a priest, that’s for sure…
Points well taken… but I think there are so many areas of these micro-intrusions that many have lost the sense of contemplation. Examples: Do we hold hands or not at the Our Father? Does the deacon do the Prayers or the Faithful or the Lector? When do Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers come from their pews? Together or as individuals? Is the first name of the person mentioned when given the Eucharist? Is leftover Precious Blood consumed at the altar? Sidetable? Sacristy? etc. and etc. Each time a new or lengthy visiting priest comes in - enters a mod to what has been done. I don’t see these things as necessarily cast in concrete - but the changes and interpretations bring mental interruptions—that’s the shame. Much less the priest who drops in his little pet wording ideas…
“The Lord is with you.”
The Agnus Dei, with all kinds of different titles (Bread of Life, Prince of Peace), especially when sung.
Father-Mother God (thankfully, has been a long time)
changing ‘He’ to ‘God’, ‘His’ to ‘God’s’
More annoying is during the Our Father or the consecration where the laity often prays with hands raised like the priest, sometimes holding the neighbor’s hand as well.
Not liturgical, but I’m also not a fan when I hear “let’s bless the food” (non-priest) instead of “let’s ask for a blessing.”
I like the change in the tranlation of the “Domine, non sum dignus…”. It’s a more direct quote from scripture, and I don’t find anything particularly elegant about the translation we’ve been using to date. At least not much more elegant than the quote from Matthew 8. 50 or 60 years from now, people would probably have similar concerns switching back to the version we’re used to hearing now!
The thing I find most jarring is when the Extraordinary Ministers (all 7 or 8 of them) go up to the front, get a handful of sanitizer from the sidetable, and start rubbing their hands together behind the altar. I’m lucky enough to be able to attend High Mass in the EF when I’m away at school, but there’s something very distracting about that scene when I attend Mass back home.
I don’t know if I’m remembering this correctly but didn’t the Eucharistic Prayer at one time say: “It will be shed for you and for all MEN so that sins may be forgiven?” In any case the way it is now, without “men,” always makes me wonder, all who? or all what? I guess this is a moot point now since this will be corrected to say …”which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
You know, your points just mean the traditional Latin Mass has that much more going for it—- higher learning curve, I’ll admit, but far less temptation to play the prayers by ear.
... and, just because there’s this long-due liturgical form doesn’t mean the bad seminarians of the ‘70s are going to suddenly stop fiddling with the liturgy and remove the glorious pattern that should be found in it.
Liturgy should be a dance, not a penance.
(Commented on your blog before I realized it wasn’t done over there. So I’ll comment here, too.)
What I would be interested in reading is a line by line report as to why each change was made. Why the old one was seen as needing change and the new words are considered better. J.A, the example using the Prayer of the Faithful is a prime example of why I would read that report.
What I would find just as “clunky” is if the only reason for the change you cited is “to bring it more inline with TLM.”
The current rendering is not only inaccurate, but also flat, pedestrian, and worse of all – doctrinally subversive. The saying: “lex orandi – lex credendi” means that liturgy and doctrine go together and reflect one another. An ordinary church-goer is not interested in studying doctrine. He learns it from the liturgy, and if the liturgy is doctrinally subversive his faith changes. That was part of Cranmer’s strategy during the English Reformation. And that is the main reason, I think, why the Pope wants the currently subversive “translation” to be brought in line with the meaning of the Latin original. That is also the reason why those who want to pursue endless debate about linguistic niceties at the cost of the faithfulness to the Latin text – they have lost their Catholic identity, do not see it, and want to pass on their blindness to others.
I am 87 years old and have experienced both the old and new translations.
The old prayers were beautiful and up lifting. I still pray the opening prayer the priest would say at the beginning of Mass. It started with,
“I will go unto the altar of God to God who giveth joy to my youth.” There was a joy and holiness to the prayers said at Mass in my early days.
How beautiful it was to say, “Oh Lord I am not worthy to receive You. Only say the words and I shall be healed.”
I attended a Tridetine Mass and read the prayers in English and they brought back the beauty of their translation. I am hopeful that the coming translations will lift my soul as the ones I experience in my younger days.
Why even ask about liturgical pet peeves? is this not inviting readers of these pet peeves to become annoyed by other people’s pet peeves—instead of thinking about Jesus during Mass?
I never stopped saying, “And with your spirit.” I never stopped saying,“O Lord I am not worthy that thou (you) should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my spirit shall be healed.” I welcome them back. Maybe being jerked out of complacency, not contemplation, may be just the medicine we need. Oh yes, “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to (probably will now be something PC)men *of good will.*
I remember walking into Church one Sunday morning and coming eyeball to eyeball with the priest. There were no warnings, no long process of preparing the faithful. It just happened. Altar rails were gone. There was no paten used to prevent desecration of the Sacrament. Perhaps this would have been the best way to handle the basic reversion to the more reverent and accurate language.
Hopefully this will eventually lead to better *Catholic* music at Mass. Somehow singing compositions by Martin Luther, et al, does not seem particularly appropriate. The Catholic Church has a wonderful and beautiful history of religious music. Why don’t we use more of it?
Great analogy. I will definitely keep this in mind. I personally am stoked beyond words about the new translation, but I have friends who are apprehensive, and this analogy will come in handy to assuage their misgivings.
*
Having been raised with the Extraordinary Form (which in my childhood the people around me called “the true Mass”), when I switched to the Ordinary Form (which had been called the “Novus Ordo” in the same tones you might use to refer to “the Soviets” or “Saddam Hussein”), I had to relearn a heckuva lot.
“And also with you” was really hard. See, what a lot of people who have only known the Ordinary Form don’t realize is that at a Tridentine Mass, everybody has a missal, with the Latin text on one side and a formally equivalent English translation on the other, like a mirror image. (There’s no better setup for following the liturgy in an unfamiliar language, not even an interlinear text.) And we all knew the response “Et cum spíritu tuo” mean “And with your spirit.” So “And also with you” just seemed bizarre.
*
The most difficult thing, though, was the sign of peace. It took years and years for this to stop feeling weird, forced, and uncomfortable. I understand (now) that this is a prayer, not a social break, but this layperson’s opinion is that we could do without it just fine. Its effectiveness as a prayer is weak to non-existent.
When I attended Tridentine Mass with various SSPX and “independent” (renegade) priests, the laity never made any verbal response (heaven forfend), but when I switched to FSSP, we were not discouraged from softly responding with the altar boys. Besides the basic responses, we always said the prayer of the centurion aloud: “Dómine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanábitur ánima mea.” (“Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.) I was so please to be able to participate aloud that I studied the Latin so I could say it without thinking! Obviously it’s still with me. For a long time after I started attending the Ordinary Form, I had to mentally follow the lame-duck ICEL “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you etc.” with the Latin in order to “feel” ready for Communion. Call it a sign of my imperfect spiritual life that I would need to compulsively recite some phrase to “feel” prepared. But the ICEL translation wasn’t doing it for this imperfect soul.
*
Pet peeve changes…? Well, I don’t like the Advent music that uses the melody from “O Come O Come Emmanuel” for the Sanctus and so forth. Since of course the words are not a perfect fit, the melody has to be adjusted, and it generally takes the congregation all of Advent to figure it out and sing it without screwing up. I guess we sound almost okay by the 4th Sunday of Advent. Like Jimmy, I also don’t like the changing responses to the intercessions, although at least our parish only changes them by season, and usually with a specific musical cue, so at least after you’ve been with the parish a year or two, you know which response follows each musical intro or ostinato. (During Ordinary Time, the responses are not sung at all, and the standard response is always “Lord, hear our prayer.”) The only other issue I can think of along these lines is when we have a new, unfamiliar Communion hymn. Hard to read the lyrics and music while also preparing for the mechanics of getting in and out of the pew smoothly (and once you’re in line you don’t have the music in front of you at all)—not to mention it’s a distraction from mental and spiritual preparation for receiving Christ. But, I guess every hymn is new the first few times.
Will the changes work toward preventing the priest from using the sermon as a ‘way back’ machine to tell, retell and retell again lame ‘funny’ stories from his past and trying to work the congregation for laughter and applause like a cheap, opening act comedian?
I will tell you what one p*sses me off to NO END. It’s the “30 minutes of pre-Mass ‘worship’” bs that our parish does. “But Mike!” you say, “How could that be bad?” Because it’s nothing but half an hour of their ‘youth band’ playing garbage Christian pop songs in the Church itself on electric instruments at max volume and zero talent for the half hour before Mass, preventing any real attempt at prayer or even hearing yourself think. BTW, I’ve watched several times and NO ONE IN THE CONGREGATION EVER JOINS IN. NOT EVEN ONCE. Any prayers / preparing for Mass I now do at home before leaving to go to Church, as the garage band style racket inside church makes it impossible to do it there.
Oh, OH! How about not having people dressed in costumes come out on certain feast days during the sermon and having a brief ‘role played dialog’ with the priest?
I suppose I’m just being a stick in the mud reactionary. Sorry.
Ironically, the points you make have actually made me change my mind on the responses in the opposite direction you intended.
I have always found the changed responses to be irritating. However you make a good point that the changes are somewhat jarring - forcing us the think about what is being said. When I look around in mass at people muttering or skipping most of the spoken and all of the sung responses it seems like a little “wake up” in the form of reponse changes can be nothing but good.
Only 78 pet peeves? You’re not paying attention.
NB: I grew up in the 40’s and 50’s when there was ONLY the Latin Mass and “everybody” did not have a missal; probably no more than a third, and another third spent Mass saying private devotions and the rosary - good in themselves but NOT a replacement for a liturgy; the remaining third zoned out - about the same as today, I think.
As far as music goes, don’t get your hopes up, America. We have a 250-year-old tradition of ugly music and we have the contemporary musicians who are fully capable of carrying it on - can anyone but me visualize (audialize) a Haagen-Daas version of “Mary Hel?”
Wow!!! I am thrilled to read all your comments. It proves to me that you really love your Catholic Faith and you want it to remain authentic, original and Universal. This our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I have no doubt Jesus is very pleased reading your comments and His love for us all is brimming. May He bless us all. How proud I am - and humbled at the same time - that God decreed I be born a Catholic. Whatever changes are made in the Liturgy we all know, and revere with utter devotion, the Apex of our Eucharistic Celebration - the Consecration - when Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity comes personally among us and then lovingly unites Himself individually and intimately with each Communicant. That is the holiest moment of embrace and Mystical Union with our Saviour for every Catholic which even the Angels envy us. Praise be Jesus Christ for this Holy Sacrament of Love and Nourishment.
My five biggest pet peeves: standing, rather than kneeling, at the Consecration; holding hands while saying the Our Father; the communal “Hiel Hitler” everybody-gets-to-hold-their-hand-up-and-pretend-they’re-a-priest; umpteen extraordinary ministers of communion, often loudly dressed, dribbling from every corner of the Church to go stand in a giant, colorful druid circle around the altar right before Communion; and finally, the millisecond the last communicant takes his seat, the priest jumping up to end Mass and send everyone off to watch a football game, everyone spontaneously oblivious to the True Presence they’ve just taken into their bodies that takes about 15-minutes to “dissolve” completely.
I came into the church in a very traditional diocese. When I moved I found a lot of weird stuff, which our new bishop is trying to crack down on.
Here are a few of my favorites.
-Every Sunday in Lent our pastor has the Gospel read by three people (the way it is on Good Friday), with a sung response from the congregation. (“Roll the stone away. Come out. Come out” etc)
-On Holy Thursday everyone washes everyone’s feet
-Then on Good Friday we do not participate in the Gospel by reciting the part of the crowd, but by repeating the good thief’s plea “Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom”
I do look forward to seeing how the new translation is accepted.
My biggest peeve is that our Dioceses is very lackadaisical in embracing our enforcing change. Our parish still rings bells at the consecration because “so many people are used to it.” In our Diocese, every liturgy is different depending on the level of changes introduced in that parish. I am looking forward to some old school “changes” but am not looking forward to the slow implementation of them.
Liturgy is a time for conformity—a nasty word for many Americans. Conformity to the rubrics, conformity with tradition, and conformity with each other in the congregation. Bad liturgy happens whenever nonconformity exists in any of these areas.
The problem is that many musicians and liturgical directors seem to be proudly nonconformist.
While not a liturgical “abuse” my pet peeve is when almost anyone with a pyx feels they can go to the tabernacle, open it and take the Eucharist for their pyx. Most just put it on the altar before Mass and Father fills it at Communion and returns it to them at the end of Mass with a blessing.
I grew up before Vatican II. In the later years when I formed my real knowledge of Jesus, I realized that the years before Vatican II were years of worshipiing the CHURCH!!!! None of the comments I read today have mentioned worshiping our God—just how to “say the words”. I can see my future as attending Mass for the Eucharist and going down the street to another denomination to WORSHIP our God!!!
My Liturgical Peeves:
• The priest praying the Eucharistic Prayer (a prayer that is supposed to be directed to God Himself) while staring at the people . . . “Take this all of YOU and eat it . . .”
• The Rite of Hand Sanitizing by the 5 million EXTRAordinary ministers of Holy Communion
• Telling jokes during the Homily/Announcements
• Making announcements before the Prayer After Communion (instead of after like they’re supposed to be)
• Not saying “Let us Pray” before the Prayer After Communion (often done to keep people from standing)
• Priests/deacons leaving Jesus alone at the altar so they can go shake people’s hands during the Right of Peace
• Rushing through Mass (not leaving time for silent reflection)
• Lay people doing parts that only ordained people should do (presidential prayers, homily, extending hands during blessing)
• Overly-liberal use of the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick during Mass
• Focussing attention on people instead of on God (inviting people to applaud the choir, etc.)
• Music that focusses on us instead of God
• Music that is not sacred (and instruments that are not sacred) used in liturgies
• Turning the nave into a social hall
The new liturgy is a further barrier to false worship. It will make bench warming very uncomfortable.
I understand that you are a convert, Jimmy, but have you ever prayed the OFFICIAL prayer of the Church? You, know the Divine Office; the Liturgy of the Hours? There are intercessions in the Hours and according to the “red letters” each of them has a different response, it is not “Lord hear our prayer.” As a pastor, who grew up in the all-Latin Mass, most of the changes that are on schedule are fine. But one thing that I wonder if people who are commenting on the flow of language that Latin has, please remember that English is NOT a Romance language; it is more Anglo-Saxon. Think of it in terms of listening to a German opera versus an Italian opera and tell me which one is more lyrical. Yes, music should enhance the celebration, but I have endured several Latin Masses with choirs that could have doubled for a back alley of screaching tom cats.
Just one thought about returning to the Latin for the whole of the celebration, if the “ancientness” of the language is what makes it more holy then why don’t we go back to the language of the early Church, Aramaic and Greek?
Bottom line I feel in a lot of this is proper planning, rehearsal and the proper frame of mind for all who are gathered. If that abounds the Eucharist is and can be the gift of God in Christ that it was meant to be.
Karen - concern about the words is a good thing. Concern that we worship God in the way His divinely guided Bride, the Church, has done for many hundreds of years is a good thing. Why do you think people are so passionate about authentic translations? It’s hardly being picky for the sake of being picky.
Going down the street to sing trendy songs while everyone keeps their hands held in the air may be emotionally pleasing, but it’s not an authentically Christian form of worship.
Got to wonder Casey, are you talking about the organ as being the only “sacred” musical instrument? At what corner of the upper room would you have found that at the Last Supper?
C.S. Lewis also complained of “liturgical fidget” where whatever the form was it was not allowed to be steady.
On top of the different words that are interspersed here and there, think of having these wonderful priests from all around the world who’s pronunciation of English can be quite different. I still think we should use the Latin. Some people are shocked and say they can’t understand it. Well, I’ve been in Mass with versions of English that weren’t inteligeble because we aren’t used to hearing that language and then people get mad and chose not to come back because they are spoiled and think they have this “right” to have the Mass in their version of English.
Casey, as a musician, please enlighten me: what are instruments that are not sacred? Try not to invoke Psalm 150.
Jimmy, some of your statements concern me: “...like how the liturgy more profoundly expresses certain truths not that it’s not encumbered with a dumbed-down, 1970s translation.” I’m intimately familiar with the current Sacramentary and have been learning about the upcoming Missal for 4 years What is less “dumbed down” in the new Missal?
You later said, “All the liturgical loosey-gooseyness of the last 40 years has had the effect of jerking the faithful out of a contemplative mode and putting them in other modes of thought (confusion, bewilderment, suspicion, rage).” How naive does one have to be to think that certain Presiders will not take similar liberties with the new Missal? The “loosey-gooseyness” is a problem of the person, not the text.
As a Catholic brought up before Vatican II, I’m glad to see the Church returning to some of the old liturgy. The “under the roof” reply should never have been changed in the first place since it is more scriptural, and more scriptural to me makes it more meaningful. Like Gina, I also prefer the “And with your Spirit.” Maybe some of these changes will make today’s Catholic more sympathetic to what we “pre-Vatican II” folk had to endure.
However, that’s all petty stuff. My pet peeve goes to the hymns we sing, particularly the hymn with the lyrics proclaiming “I MYSELF am the bread of life.” The melody is beautiful and the words could be as well, except that the opening words belie the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. If it’s true that most Catholics do not believe in the true presence, then why are we reinforcing this lack of catechesis?
Yes, we are all the body of Christ, and I get that,but I think the hymn above is not saying that at all. It takes away, in my opinion, but the tremendous gift we have of Christ in the Eucharist and points away from adoration of God to self.
Oh, yeah, one more pet peeve: not having enough time to thank Jesus after Communion because we rush from singing during Communion to announcements. I often wonder what the point is of receiving Communion at all if we don’t get to “communicate” with the Lord one on one. We’re told Communion is so the entire community can celebrate together, but then the “Host” of this banquet is ignored. How sad is that!!!! We are told we must sing while others go to Communion because we will be given quiet time after, but that never happens! I now come back to the pew and make my thanksgiving immediately so I make sure I get this private time. Yes, it’s time with community, and I understand that, but there needs to be balance.
Hmm.. my top pet peeves.
1. Changing “so that from East to West a perfect offering may be made” to “East to West, North to South” which really misses the point.
2. Instead of just praying for our deceased brothers and sisters in Christ, the priest continuing on to mention our deceased fathers, mothers, friends, relations etc., making the prayer much more limited than the original form which covers all Christians, not just are immediate acquaintances.
3. Songs and prayers where the congregants all raise their right hand in blessing mode. Aside from the fact that only the priest should be doing the blessing, it always looks like a Nazi Heil Hitler rally.
4. Prayers of the faithful where EVERYONE has an intention to outline at length, with details about what their family has been going through on a yearly basis for the last twenty years.
Two off the top of my head (I’m trying to block out some easier to ignore ones so I don’t get distracted by careless ministers):
During the petitions, which are spoken, the organist (or whoever) sings—and the congregation cuts him off so we get “we pray to the Lord hear our prayer.”
At Communion, the pews in the back are brought up first. I suppose it’s someone’s clever idea to remind us that the last shall be first, but what ends up happening is instead of focusing my attention on the Eucharist, people receiving the Sacrament, the altar, and so on, I end up looking over my shoulder to see when everyone in the row behind me who intends to receive has gone up, since the ushers have to stand too far away to be helpful if they don’t want to disrupt the traffic in the aisle, or they’re not afraid to skip to the next row if you hesitate—I’ve seen it more than once—or usually, both.
I call this “Liturgical Simon Says”. I don’t play their game anymore. So I stopped doing the “dance” years ago, immediately after The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit became real in my life.
What difference does it make what we SAY here on earth at Mass, if our HEARTS are not predisposed to God 24/7? Only matters of ETERNAL IMPORTANCE count, in the long run.
1Peter 1: 3-7 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in his great mercy gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you who by the power of God are safeguarded through faith, to a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the final time. In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials…”
Now THAT is reason to rejoice! Worshipping like the dances King David & Miriam did! Theirs was not “Liturgical Simon Says” for pew people.
I prefer the normal “Lord, hear our prayer,” or, as I remember in Ireland: “Lord hear us.” “Lord, graciously hear us.” However, I disagree with your statement that using other words takes us away from contemplation. In many, many parishes, and in many, many hearts, including my own, at times we find ourselves distracted. Some may even be accused of “rattling off the prayers.” When I am forced to stop and think about what I am saying, I am challenged to listen and actually join in the prayer.
In addition, as a previous poster pointed out, the Liturgy of the Hours, the official prayerbook of the Church, is filled with numerous responses to the intercessions not just, “Lord, hear our prayer.”
A major question for discussion should be whether posts like this one and the subsequent responses form us in bitterness.
My view is slightly different here. While I agree that awkward or non sequitur responses should be avoided, I can’t say I mind varying “Lord, hear our prayer” with other reasonable responses. While the Lewisian precept that you want to learn the steps and then not think about them is a sound one, some variation is helpful to help avoid falling into responding mechanically without thinking. I understand it’s quite possible to dance without knowing what steps are coming up next, and find out on the fly—but you have to be paying attention. :-)
@Cradle Catholic
Trouble is, in those cultures dance really was a high form of worship. Today, due to changing mores, it’d just be a kind of anarchy. I’d have to say that in our culture, which is defined by its moral anarchy, a kind of purposeful restraint is by far more reverent _because it doesn’t come naturally to us_.
In our parish we change the response to the prayers of petition on some occasions. What I’ve discovered is that people need to “wake up” now and again at Mass, which is part contemplation, part meditation and part public worship. The prayers of petition change from week to week, but if we are thinking about something else they do nothing to change us (they cannot change God, who is infinite in Wisdom). And while they should always be logical (O Come let us adore Him seems a bit odd) they can also serve to remind us that our minds must be directed to doing God’s will, not our own, to paying attention to the words we speak and not just saying them in rote, and participating in the liturgy of the Church, which doesn’t mean shouting, but does mean placing ourselves into the very presence of Christ’s sacrifice which is made present to us on the altar, in the reading of Scripture and in our very own lives.
Benjamin Baxter wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 2:42 PM (EST)
“@Cradle Catholic—Trouble is, in those cultures dance really was a high form of worship. Today, due to changing mores, it’d just be a kind of anarchy.”
Cradle Catholic responds:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. Please, please do NOT interpret my words that I think DANCE is a good idea at Mass. At our cathedral, there are some odd things happening, and it is disconcerting - with a woman in her sixties or seventies, parading up the aisle, wearing flowing and thin white cotton nightgown-like material, with flowers in her hair, and waving yards of material from a banner. She’s accompanied by 4 teenage girls, and frankly, the whole spectacle reminds me of what was described in pagan temples, with temle prostitutes.
Further, I know some people (all ages, families, middle age and older) that left a local parish because their new pastoral leader majored in Liturgical Dance - so they are getting what I described above, 52 weeks a year. They said hasta la vista, and for one, after 35 years at that parish, they are “shopping around” for a new place to worship.
What I meant to say by “dance” was it was heartfelt worship. It wasn’t something that was scripted, and forced. It was just from the heart, and that’s what ALL our worship ought to be. It has been that way for me, ever since I stopped playing “Liturgical Simon Says”.
I grew up in the days when the Mass was the same, world over. In other words, in Latin. There was no need for a Spanish Mass, a Vietnamese Mass, and an English Mass. You could go to any country and it was the same - it was Latin. Our missals had both the Latin and the English (my Grandfather’s was Latin and German)and no matter what your ethnic origins you prayed side by side. Now we have, in essence, segregated the people according to their ethnic origins.
I may be old fashioned, but it seems that the REAL change to our liturgy should be to step back into the past and all nations pray together again in Latin. Turn the priest around so he is not praying to the people, but instead praying to God.
I have always been annoyed with the changes, like “howdy doody time” and also the use of lay people to distribute Communion, holding hands/raising hands (that’s a priest’s job), and women on the altar. Altar boys/girls are okay. (FYI - I am a woman).
But ... no one really asked my opinion when the new changes were being developed so I’ll just continue to go along with whatever comes. Worshiping our God from one’s heart and soul is more important.
@ Cradle Catholic
Good, good, good. I was hoping you didn’t mean what I thought you meant.
For my money, and I think you agree with myself and Mr. Akin, worship from the heart is a great deal easier when the ritual can be done without worrying about the accidents of the ritual. Personal meditation and prayer is wonderful, but group meditation and prayer is even better, and we can’t get that if the responses change every week. These days, the fact is you can’t guarantee that unless you go to a Traditional Latin Mass.
“Don’t pray at Holy Mass, but pray the Holy Mass.”
Is my FSSP showing?
Jocille D
“I grew up in the days when the Mass was the same, world over. In other words, in Latin.” - No, it wasn’t: all the Eastern Churches, both separated and Catholic, I repeat: and Catholic, had and still have the Mass in their respective languages. In fact, during the first millennium half of the Church had liturgy in Greek or Slavonic. Even the “Latin” Church along the present Croatian coast used Slavonic (Old Croatian) language since ninth cent. at the latest.
Can one safely assume that there’s a certain irony to read all this talk about people not liking change and wanting things the way they were - on the internet?
I don’t like change - but I have a cell phone. I don’t like change - but I have a computer and am online. I don’t like change - but my car is newer than 40 years old.
Is it irony ... or something else? :-)
Rick Reed…
I have to smile. The same people who don’t like any change whatsoever also like it when the AC is on in the Church during the Summer and they want the Priest’s cell phone number so that they can reach him, even if he’s 1,000 miles away on vacation.
Good point!
I’m truly shocked at some of the comments of liturgical abuse.
Feet washing is one of my pet peeves - Thank God our Pastor is firm on this - only men have their feet washed!
We did have someone in the parish who mimicked the body language and gestures of the priest and in particular the orans position. It drove me crazy because he always sat up front and you could not help but see him. It took everything in my power to not run up and pull his arms back down to his side. :-)
One of my pet peeves during Mass are the folks who say private prayers during any part of the Mass, especially in whispers which can be heard. I’ve always wondered if Mass isn’t interesting enough for them, or if they think that they really don’t have to listen to God, what they really want is for God to listen to them.
One day at Mass I mentioned this during the homily. A woman came into the Sacristy after Mass and started to speak with me in an angry tone. She was furious and called me a “liberal nutcase”. Then she noticed I was saying the Rosary and not paying attention to her. She said “I am talking to you! Listen to me!” I just smiled. Then she realized what I was telling her.
“As a dancer, dance instructor, and dance caller (I call square dances, contra dances, etc.)” Ha!
From Mary42 “I have no doubt Jesus is very pleased reading your comments.” I wonder if he has wifi.
I think the Roman Catholic Mass is THE most perfect prayer. We begin by addressing the Father, in the Name of the Son, and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
We acknowledge that we gather together, in His Presence, as a family.
We (sometimes, I wish it were more often) say a confession of sins.
We give God glory for His mercy and grace.
We HEAR the Word of God - faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the Word of God.
We listen to a reflection on the readings - I wish the preaching were less homiletic (especially an 8 minute quickie) and more expository, with the Bible still out, and not put to the side, and the verses right in front of us, EXPOSED for us to see the Truth in it.
We have the consecration of the Eucharist and - I always like to picture Jesus coming back for us, with the heavens open to Him and His faithful that went before us…coming back….
And I picture the holy ones and the angels in Heaven during the Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of POWER and MIGHT, heaven and earth are filled with YOUR GLORY! Hosanna in the highest!!
I picture the living saints and the saints in heaven (all the faithful that believed, and their faith was counted to them as the righteousness of Jesus…) and we are ALL IN COMMUNION together - THANKFUL for being given access to the Father, and asking for the Holy Spirit to be with the Church militant (and it IS a battle - ie: same-sex marriage, and even from within: the folks that think it’s a good idea to have women priests) and then…........
Great AMEN!!!
I can’t carry a tune in a bucket, but I belt out hymns of praise at Mass.
Sometimes people tell me I have a nice voice. It must be just the emotion and the enthusiasm I put into my worship, because I change pitch all the time - I’m not being modest - I really don’t sing well. Now, I just smile and say, “Thank you! I like to sing hymns!”
Then we have the Great Commmission - to be salt and light in the world, and I picture Jesus Himself, blessing me. Ah,the perfect prayer.
I heard a good way to pray is to think of the acrostic ACTS:
Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication. Just like Mass!
I hope the new liturgy doesn’t change any of those images for me. It may be that time is spent trying to do the new dance steps, and the worship may get overlooked. Time will tell.
my pet peeve - just one and only one, that more parishes do not offer the EF at least once on Sunday. Spanish language Masses and more offered and most bishops say not enough priests are familiar with it or not enough ask for it. well why not build it and they will come
We all need to remember that there is always a reason why the Church has rubrics in place to determine the correct posture (so that the laity is unified in their responses and to differentiate the laity from the ordained) right down to why the Church decides to make changes to the liturgy - in the case of the “new liturgy” to get a more accurate translation of the text (and for us to get a deeper understanding of scripture)than what is currently in place. The mass is not a “forum” for personal expression. Like anything that is presented to us that is new, it will take some time getting used to the changes, but I personally hope it will draw all of us in even deeper to what is taking place.
Our priest changes the words of the Mass. For example, during the Communion Rite he says “...protect us from all turmoil” instead of “anxiety”, and “This is the SPOTLESS Lamb of God” (spotless being one of several embellishments he may use). Is this liturgical abuse? At the very least, it is annoying and disruptive.
Someone please correct me, if I am wrong - but, I think standardized liturgies have only been around since the 11th century. Since then, they have been altered a few times.
Prior to that - like Pentecost and after, while the Mass was similar to what we know now (per Justin Martyr’s writings describing what early Christians did on The Lord’s Day), there was no set format for words and posture, right?
There were readings from the Old Testament and the letters sent to the Churches (our New Testament) was read, and the presiders (what would be our priests) spoke about the readings, explaining them and putting them into the framework of living in that day. But I don’t think there was a recitation of pre-scripted prayer.
I think that all came along in the 1000’s and after, and by that time, I suspect it was the result of church leaders wanting power and control. Thus, “Liturgial Simon Says”.
why not change it back to the “tridentine” rite? I’m a convert and I came into the Church in that rite. I’ve been to mass a couple times in the ordinary form and the old way is way better.
Hi Gina! (We go to the same parish, I think. :)) I am so happy to hear your recollections; as a convert, I came into the Church only in 2003. I have to disagree on one point….only my opinion, of course. We agree on the aching need for greater reverence. But the great hymns are not necessarily the problem. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church of the 1950s and 60s, where we said the Creed each week and had sacramental theology (such as it was). It’s changed so much. If we in the Catholic Church really sang all the great hymns with 4-part harmony (like Jesus Christ is Risen Today, which is sung often at Easter, thankfully, and Holy God We Praise Thy Name (the Te Deum of Benediction); and Crown Him with Many Crowns, All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name) we’d be in pretty good shape. Yes—take out anti-Catholic elements..but still these hymns stir the soul and teach the Faith! And yes, combine them with the rich history of Catholic music styles. But this Glory and Praise **** we are stuck with is soul-ennervating. I almost lost it last Sunday when the recessional hymn was “Sing a New Church into Being.” Gag me with a spoon…...
Another thing I thought of….I started receiving on the tongue because of concern with particles…..I have nothing against Communion in the hand other than this reason. It’s allowed by the Church *if* proper precautions are taken to avoid sacrilege. And proper precautions are *not* being taken. That being said, one time I received on the tongue and the minister missed and touched the side of my mouth. (It’s hard to get it right when you’re moving in procession.) When I knelt at my pew, a big chunk fell on the floor (which I consumed). I was immediately aware of the wisdom of past ages requiring not only kneeling at the altar, but putting a cloth at the rail to catch crumbs. We really need to fix this. For one thing, Extraordinary Ministers as well as communicants need to wash their hands after receiving, if receiving on the hand. And patens should be used! In a reverent parish nearby, they use patens but only with the priest and deacon, not with the EMoHCs. This makes no sense at all—is it just for show, or what?
Yes—I have lots of pet peeves that distract from the flow of contemplation during liturgy.
Re: “I Am the Bread of Life”—actually I do like that current hymn. I know there are complaints about us singing Jesus’ words, but I just see it as quoting the Bible. Really, that one seems very reverent and Eucharistic. It brings tears to my eyes. “On Eagles Wings”, on the other hand…..maybe it’s just a matter of taste, or maybe it’s just been overdone, but I really don’t like that one.
Apologies Joanne S.—we may be thinking of different hymns. I would agree that if the purpose of the hymn you mention is to overly stress that we are the Body of Christ that the way it’s put “I myself am the Bread of Life” is completely ghastly. But maybe we’re thinking of different hymns. Is “myself” actually in the hymn you’re thinking of?
Oh yeah, pet peeve 10 million: the usher who holds his arm across the pew until it’s time for our row to go up for Communion….makes my rebellious nature want to storm the Bastille…and knock his arm away (don’t worry…I haven’t done it. Yet.) Not the attitude to have before receiving the Lord.
Re Greydanus, and Jason and others: I see what you’re saying, and in theory I agree. Rote responses can sound so deadening. But we really don’t know what’s in someone else’s heart. Here’s the thing. For me, as a Protestant, I loved changes and new things. But I came into the Holy Catholic Church as a wounded spirit, needing constancy. I wouldn’t mind if we were alerted (say by a handout explaining the reasons) a little ahead of time, why different responses would be used this week. What I object to is having stuff being sprung on me in the middle of contemplative group worship (i.e.,liturgy). It’s jarring and emotionally upsetting. I think from the point of view of liturgical planners—they know what’s coming so they don’t see the problem. One example: I was visiting a church where they didn’t light the candles on the altar. During Liturgy of the Word they had 2 altar servers with candles by the ambo (love that!), and then Liturgy of the Eucharist, they lit the altar candles. During the homily, the priest explained the reason—-to highlight the importance of each part. I knew we were in trouble when he began, “Liturgical directors (I forget the exact word) are *not* liturgical terrorists.” I knew then I was in a dissident parish. However, the licitness of the candle thing is another issue. When it was explained, I could see how beautiful the symbolism was. However, I can’t even describe how seeing that dark altar hit me spiritually and emotionally before I knew what was going on. JUST SAY THE BLACK AND DO THE RED!!! This is from the point of view of the faithful….anything else, in a Catholic Mass, is *harmful* to us and is a near occasion of sin for us becoming bitter. Also, this particular parish was in a tourist area, so it isn’t like most people were ready for this innovation. (Wisconsin Dells for those who want to know.)
Donna: I agree. I find that every Novus Ordo Mass I attend is a near occasion of sin. Liturgical improvisation, drippy music, and what by every indication appears to be an irreverent laity.
I don’t want to presume to judge the hearts of men, so I won’t say that 120 out of 150 parishoners have no good reason to come to Mass in a soccer jersey and flip-flops and khaki shorts. I will say that that isn’t the example I want my children to see.
I agree to some extent about stuff not being scripted, in the sense that the responses of the faithful shouldn’t be strictly regulated….let us kneel, or put our hands up, or whatever—but don’t make us feel guilty that we’re not holding hands (by one person grabbing my hand forcefully, or shoving a hymnal in my ribs, which has happened), or spring new words on us in the middle of liturgy in an attempt to make us think…please don’t do that.
I usually change the prayers of the faithful to match the season. For example, during advent our response was “O Come, Emanuel” For Christmas we used “Father, hear us”. For Lent we will use “Lord, hear us.” and for Easter “Lord, hear our prayer”. The prayers change by week, also. For example, this week we prayed for those killed and injured in Tuscon. We often pray for the end of abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. We prayed for the victims of the Earthquake in Haiti. These are parts of the Mass which change due to need.
Thank you Benjamin—just wanted to say my “not scripted” remark wasn’t directed to you—it was in response to some of the conversations with Cradle Catholic and Father Higgins and various other comments…it’s hard to keep up in this format!
Yeah, I know. The comment script is pretty limiting. You’d think they’d make it easier to distinguish a reply, something like how the A.V. Club comments section works.
Fr. Higgins—oh, I agree-the prayers of the faithful change…and now I learned something, that “Lord hear our prayer” is an option—now I won’t get so upset when it’s changed. But my point is, before I didn’t know. And it just added to my nervousness about “what am I going to experience today at this Mass”? Knowing what’s been okay’ed by Rome and having it done right—that’s just humility and respect for the faithful. Seeing things from the other’s point of view. I think there’s a default position in American Catholicism that we’re going to do it our way, Rome doesn’t know what’s going on, etc. From my own personal experience, multiple times, I can say this harms the faithful. I came into the Church in 2003 with no preconceived notions, and no knowledge of intra-Church politics and history. I was enthusiastic and actively participating. And time and again, I find that when priests, liturgical directors, musical directors, CHRP retreat directors—violate what Holy Mother Church has decreed—it hurts *me*, even before I knew what the rule was. Right now I’m in a state of extreme demoralization. This just isn’t right.
Donna,
There are some things that can change at Mass and some things which cannot, no matter what anyone says (except perhaps the Pope). I’ve seen some fairly insane things happen at Mass. When I was a Deacon (the year before ordination to Priesthood) I witnessed a “Clown Mass”, where the Priest was dressed as a clown. It literally made me ill. As a newly ordained Priest I heard my pastor say “Today, if you cannot receive Communion for any reason, please come up and get a jelly bean for Jesus!” He handed out jelly beans during Communion time from a Waterford Crystal bowl. I was disgusted, but really too young to take action. An older Priest took the crystal bowl after Mass and threw it down on the floor of the sacristy, breaking it and scattering jelly beans everywhere. I can’t say as I blame him, though I probably would not do that today. Instead, I’d confront him on the spot, even during Mass, and report him to the Bishop.
A pet peeve is one thing, but there are things even more insane than any of the pet peeves above. I just won’t put up with them. I would hope nobody else would either!
I would not be opposed to having the prayers in the Mass that do not change said in Latin and the prayers that do change said in the language spoken by the people attending Mass. For example, if the congregation is Vietnamese then the opening prayer, the prayer of the faithful, etc., would be in Vietnamese and the Liturgy of the Eucharist would be in Latin. I am sooooooo tired of having petitions said in every language thought to be spoken in a parish. I have observed that this is not unifying but divisive. This is illustrated by instances in our archdiocese, which does all these accommodations, even in meetings where particular representatives of groups will stand up and speak in their language because that was the “original” language spoken here, or priests leading a novena - in English - that had to be terminated because Hispanic and Philipino groups showed up to pray in their own language and the cacophany was so great that you had a vision of what Babel must have been like after the tower fell. Just my two cents worth (and that may be overpricing it).
Sue in soCal…
We’ve been in the same Cathedral, I am sure. I cringe when I see a long line of people dressed in costumes at the Prayers of Petition, read in many languages, while 99% of the people in the Cathedral speak English and the other 1% speak only Spanish. This isn’t liturgy, it’s performance.
Benjamin, how is a Novus Ordo Mass a “near occasion of sin”? For you or for others?
Donna, on behalf of those who truly love and care for good liturgy, I’m so sorry that your RCIA experience wasn’t as educational as it could have been. Or rather, should have been. In the Sacramentary, many of the instructions are explicit, many offer options, such as “in these or other words”. Many of the prayers have two options to use.
A pet peeve of mine, as a director, is deviations from the “script” that create extra work and expense. For example, how much money is spent on lights, cords, etc. for lighting the music of the choir during the Easter Vigil Liturgy of the Word when the Sacramentary says the lights are to be on BEFORE the Exsultet?
Ask your parish liturgist (if not the priest) for help when you have questions. The pastor, although the primary liturgist, often has a staff person to handle that particular workload. It’s what I do, for example, because our pastor is (like most pastors) a busy man.
Rick,
I don’t have a Sacramentary at my desk. What part of the instruction is that to be found? I have been celebrating Easter Vigil with the lights off until the Gloria for years. If this is wrong I’ll make the change ASAP.
Thanks!
Rick Reed: It’d essentially be the a near occasion of the sins of pride and presumption because I’m tempted to distract myself and dwell on my “superiority” in the eyes of God. I kneel during the consecration, and I wear my Sunday best to Mass every time I’m not in the schola, and I show up on time and I don’t freakin’ leave early.
_Everyone_ at the local FSSP Mass does the same things I do, and so I don’t even notice these anymore while participating in the liturgy. In fact, if I notice someone slipping in late, I’m not tempted to judge them as having no good reason—- it’s so rare at my parish that I automatically give them the benefit of the doubt _without_ forcing myself to repeat the doctrine that I cannot judge the hearts of men.
If that qualifies as a near occasion of sin as I think it may it would be by chance and not design. I aimed, rather, at hyperbole.
Fr. Higgins, it’s a one line red instruction at the bottom of the page just before the Exsultet begins. I’m not at work (but my Sacramentary is), but it sticks in my mind because I found it by accident. Memory tells me it’s on a “right” (odd numbered) page. Memory’s been wrong before…
Having the lights on during the readings, psalms, and prayers is SO much easier. Here’s the anti-climatic moment, though. At the Gloria, the candles in the church are lit (per the Sacramentary). In most parishes, it’s an action barely noticed thanks to electricity and the usual small amount of candles to be lit. Also, in my current parish as well as most of my former parishes, those in the church can’t hear the bells ringing during the Gloria. In one parish, we ran the wire from the electronic bells to the church mixer so we could hear them inside, although through the sound system. Still, it was nice to hear “our” bells.
Benjamin, thanks for clarifying.
Several: 1. Hand-holding at the Our Father; 2. Congregants gesturing and outstretching arms; 3.Organist playing sound-track music while priest prays Offertory prayers; 4. Children as young as 5 or 6 as lectors; 5. Children performing “Skits” during Mass to “illustrate” the Gospel; 6. The Memorial Acclamation interrupting the Eucharistic prayer; 7. The “doubled” and “trebled” and “quadrupled” ‘Alleluias’ and ‘Amens,’ and Responses to the verses of the Responsorial Psalms; 8. The use of “Psalm Response” instead of “Psalms” because the wording is changed substantially to fit the music; 9. The changing of the wording of Psalms not only to unrecognizable “Psalm Responses” but eliminating all masculine pronouns; 10. Ushers chaperoning late arrivals into pews—not only during the readings, but all the way to front-row pews!—these later arrivals should be unceremoniously told about 10 minutes into Mass to please be seated in the last 3 pews, reserved with big signs “FOR LATE ARRIVALS”; 11. Marty Haugen & Dan Schutte - occasionally yes, but every week? Whatever happened to “Humbly We Adore Thee”?; 12. Charles Wesley—do we really need to dip into the Methodist and other Protestant hymnals to have beautiful music?
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Father Higgins. I haven’t experienced anything as jarring as a jelly bean for Jesus, thank goodness! Maybe things are turning around for the better.
I don’t want to be hypocritical, but before I knew so much, in the first flush of conversion zeal, we were on a cruise ship, and the priest brought out balloons and little Japanese paper animals with words on them like “love” and “peace” (after the Mass, though). I thought it was amazing and loved it. I also loved how he invited us up to the altar for the Consecration. Looking back though, after I knew the rubrics, I could clearly see how in my heart I was wondering what’s wrong with all the people who didn’t want to come up. May God have mercy on me in my ignorance! They were the ones who knew the right thing to do! That’s part of what I meant by the Church knowing what’s good for us—even when we don’t. Now I have to work on being more charitable to others who don’t know any better. Like, the Lord really did a number on me a couple of weeks ago. The man next to me—at the beginning of Mass his cell phone went off and I was thinking all kinds of things. Then, right at the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer (thank you Lord it wasn’t 30 seconds earlier!) my own phone, that I was *sure* was set on “off”, rang….with my current ringtone—the Texas A&M war hymn. Humility, humility…..
I usually do fine; although there have been moments of despair that didn’t have to happen. I guess it’s just so good to have a forum here where we’re invited to vent about all these things that have been piling up inside. I tend not to want to talk to anyone at my parish because I don’t want to be criticized or get into an argument. I experienced a lot of negativity when I first came into the Church even though I rarely said anything. Whether it’s cowardice or prudence, I don’t know. But not saying anything isn’t good—it tends to cause things to build up. Rick, your explanation of near occasion of sin explains it really well. If everyone is minding their own business and praying the Mass, then the occasional difference doesn’t stand out; also, I don’t end up feeling like I’m being holier than thou just by following my heart in worship (kneeling, not holding hands, etc.).
Wow—another mea culpa. Last week, a lady had something to say to me after Mass—I stood there and chatted with her for a few minutes. The very thing I criticize others for…..but hey, it was *me* ....that’s different. Oh, dear…..I have a long way to go.
12. Charles Wesley—do we really need to dip into the Methodist and other Protestant hymnals to have beautiful music?
Yes! Good stuff in there….
We have the tabernacle in the sanctuary ... off to one side ... yet the priests will never genuflect at the beginning and ending of Mass to the tabernacle. They never fail however to bow to the wood of the crucifix. They also fail to genuflect at the prescribed times during the Mass. Extraordinary Ministers, 12 of ‘em, surround the altar before the priest has consumed the Eucharist, then they proceed to distribute the Precious Blood to one another rather than each receive it from the hands of the priest/deacon. It is such a distraction!
re: “12. Charles Wesley—do we really need to dip into the Methodist and other Protestant hymnals to have beautiful music?”
Yes. Heavens, yes.
Some of the stuff in the Catholic hymnody is execrable. Sorry, but it just is. Treacly text (“lyrics” if you prefer) paired with milquetoasty arrangements performed by insufficiently rehearsed vocalists using sound systems I’d have been embarrassed to have in my dorm room.
And it’s quite a shame that the Church with the “fullness of the faith” should be devoid of congregational polyphony in its singing. Are Methodists and Baptists so much more talented and clever than Catholics, that they can handle basic, predictable SATB (Soprano-Alto-Tenor-Bass) but Catholics can’t?
The English “Gloria” is problematic especially…no, “problematic” isn’t strong enough.
I mean, I assume the text has a regular rhythm and perhaps an actual rhyme scheme, when in the Latin original. But it has neither rhythm nor rhyme in English, yet some tin-eared idiot seems to have taken it into his head to attempt to use the same melodic shape, over and over and over again, for lines of radically different syllable-count, stress-patterns, and ending sounds.
As a result, every single musical phrase begins with the same couple of pitches, but then repeats one pitch as many times as is necessary to accommodate the different number of syllables in the line, which causes that pitch to occur anywhere from one to ten times. As if this weren’t bad enough, the actual melodic shape is violently inattentive to the way one would naturally say the words: It ferociously refuses to fit.
In short, my five-year old improvises more naturally singable and artful melodies. I hear there’s a book titled “Why Catholics Can’t Sing.” I haven’t read it, but that Gloria arrangement is a likely suspect. I suppose being forced to hear the Gloria done that way over and over again for years on end is probably a good way to deaden one’s musical sensibilities until one is no longer capable of telling the difference between J.S.Bach and the Crash Test Dummies.
Argh. Argh, argh, argh.
Anyway, if there is to be liturgical change, it should be doctrinally correct, rich with depth of meaning, and beautifully done…and then stay that way a hundred years. Unless something is screamingly wrong; in which case an emergency fix may be applied.
I’m content with the “reform of the reform” of the liturgy, I suppose.
But the music is screamingly wrong in so many ways. That’s where I’d love an emergency fix to be applied. (Even if it means borrowing from the best of the Protestant hymnody on occasion, so long as the doctrine is correct.)
Status quo: Have just any of the laity do the readings.
Better idea: Have a trained layperson sing the readings.
Status quo: Have old hippies somewhere write the music.
Better idea: Draw from the rich, 1000-year-old Catholic musical traditions, whether chant or polyphony.
Personally, my theory is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
RC—I thoroughly enjoyed your post—it lifted my spirits—in a gallows humor sort of way! < being forced to hear the Gloria done that way over and over again for years on end is probably a good way to deaden one’s musical sensibilities until one is no longer capable of telling the difference between J.S.Bach and the Crash Test Dummies>roflol!!
The one that gets me—and I sang in choirs for many years—is “Gather Us In.” I *can’t* sing it….really….it’s not only that I don’t like it….I can’t make my voice go with the notes. Horrible song.
It ought to be possible for some authority to weed out any stray heresies in hymns. I bet some of the Catholic hymns were originally Protestant, or vice-versa.
I learned something new. Ever since being on various blogs I hear about “polyphony.” I’m supposing it’s something quintessentially Catholic like chant. And now I find out it’s just the SATB four-part harmony I grew up singing MY WHOLE LIFE! This is one of the biggest shocks/sacrifices involved in my becoming Catholic, losing polyphony. We wonder why men aren’t singing when everything is pitched way high and the sentiments are so flowery and feminine.
Having the Eucharist is worth giving up everything, even my life. But is it really, really *necessary* to give up good music?
Some kind soul on Father Z’s blog, to soothe my spirits, posted this wonderful rendition of “Crown Him with Many Crowns”. I wish the words came through—they’re awesome—all about giving Christ the glory. It starts with a lovely chant in this version, and later on there’s a beautiful descant, which the poster says is from the Episcopal hymnal. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phQj7qDpAVA&feature=related
From Mary M’s post:<The mass is not a “forum” for personal expression.> True, very true. But I admit to some confusion here. Cardinal Arinze said something about not regulating the laity’s behavior in Mass in an overly rigid way so everyone is doing exactly the same thing in military fashion. What I take this to mean is that rubrics are primarily for the priests and deacons in the sense that that frees us up from having to look around and be liturgy police, wondering if everyone is doing things right. Can someone clarify this for me? I mean—I see the helpfulness of knowing just what to do when—but I don’t like feeling like I’m going to be arrested if I make a mistake, you know what I mean?
After dissing Haugen/Haas I must be fair and give them their due….I love, absolutely love the David Haas Gloria from the Mass of Light….sadly, we don’t do it anymore—we do a horrible rendition that’s used in the 5:30, more “conservative” Mass because it has a little Latin in it. I mean, I’m all for more Latin, but not at the expense of musical beauty!
This is a concert version of the Gloria, but after a few bars you’ll recognize it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZMEp1ejYjs
Also, I love, love, love the Celtic Alleluia!
I notice my Post was mostly deleted. Why???? However, I note that most of the commentators here are converts. No doubt they would wish the Protestant worship they came with into the Catholic Church to be absorbed and made the major part in our Worship during the Eucharistic Celebration. But I would humbly beg them to understand and appreciate that the Catholic Church has been with us now for 2010 years. Our way of Eucharistic Worship and the specific Prayers for the specific Liturgical Segments of the Holy Mass during the respective Liturgical Seasons and Feasts, are chosen for very good reasons which fits with each Segment and Liturgical Season. We need to appreciate and accept that the Eucharistic Celebration, the Readings and the Vestments are Universal and one needs to understand what they mean to understand their symbolism and message and why the Catholic Church retains them, before one criticizes them and tries to introduce the Protestant way of Worship in the Catholic Church. Sorry if I have offended anyone but we Cradle Catholics understand the Eucharistic Celebration and all that pertains to it very, very well and why at times - like now - the Church decides to modify the mode of Worship and Hymns for each liturgical Season in accordance with the Liturgical Calendar of the Universal Catholic Church. Many may not be aware but the Readings and the Seasons of the Catholic Church are already in place for the next 30 years!!!!!
Donna - This is said tongue in cheek “Liturgy Police” is one of my pet peeves. People often use it when they don’t want to follow the rubrics and I am certainly not inferring this is you. They will insist that we follow the Spirit of the Law rather than the Letter which is the same thing as saying “i don’t need to follow what the Church asks me to follow and I can make my own decisions on what to do.”
Cardinal Arinze, or any other Cardinal, Priest or Deacon have opinions but they are just that - opinions. I am, however, interpreting Cardinal Arinze’s comments to mean that we should be aware of what we are doing and simply not going through the motions. The GIRM “organizes” us on an offical basis on what takes place at mass.
Oh yes, another pet peeve of mine, people refusing to receive the Eucharist from anyone but the priest; they will not even receive from the Deacon even though he is ordained clergy. I have witnessed this myself in my role as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist; despite the promptings of the ushers eight people refused to receive from me. This is all very peculiar to me - does Jesus refuse to come to any of us or does He first need to “qualify us” according to our station in life before He comes under our roof? Yes, I know these individuals ONLY want to receive from the hands that consecrated the host. Pride can become a close friend of ours if we allow it.
Donna, here’s the section from the GIRM regarding posture. There is a reason for everything that is done in the mass. You can read the entire GIRM at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Movements and Posture
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.
A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.
I think that if we can get ourselves to the point in trusting that what the Church has given us is true and right - it will free us to submit ourselves wholly to the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. Obedience fosters freedom which bring us peace.
Mary M.
“I have witnessed this myself in my role as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist; despite the promptings of the ushers eight people refused to receive from me.”
They were right, and I would have been among them if present. The EOM are envisaged for exceptional circumstances, but our bishops have turned it into regular event, and, accordingly, permit these ministers to be unlawfully referred to as “Eucharistic” or “Special” ministers. In this situation of lawlessness what an individual, who knows the rule, can in conscience do but make up his mind and judge for himself whether the situation is really exceptional; which situation, in this country, is hardly ever the case.
Besides, while the use of the EMOE is in exceptional circumstance permitted, there is no rule demanding from an individual to receive from them.
The accusation of “pride” is uncharitable. The abusive practice in this country humiliates Our Lord, it is subversive of the doctrine of transubstantiation and priesthood. What for are the priests if they are not to be the ministers of this great Mystery of our Faith? Instead, one sees the situations where priest sits in the sanctuary, while an immodestly dressed woman gives the Communion.
My biggest peeve was already mentioned: changing “He” to “God” and “His” to “God’s” It is very, very jarring. It also really bothers me when I see it printed as alternate wording for songs. The Gather hymnal is one of the worst offenders, I think. When I was a kid, one of my favorite songs was “Let There Be Peace On Earth.” I loved singing, “Let me walk with my brother, in perfect harmony.” Now it’s “Let us walk with each other,” which just isn’t the same.
The worst, though, is when the priest himself abuses the liturgy, especially by changing the words of the Eucharistic prayer.
Jimmy, is there anything that a layperson can do when he notices genuine liturgical abuse at his parish?
“thus it’s one of my liturgical pet peeves.
What are some of yours?”
The Novus Ordo.
Hi Mary42—No, no, that’s not it at all….forgive me if I misunderstand, but it’s been my observation that many cradle Catholics, being used to the universal nature of the Church, think of “Protestant” as one thing; specifically, the modern mega-church enthusiastic praise and worship service. I grew up in a very orderly worship service (they don’t call Presbyterians the “frozen chosen” for nothing!), which was basically Liturgy of the Word with occasional Holy Communion (which made those services really long because the sermons are typically around 20 minutes long). I was also Lutheran for awhile after my marriage, and they are even more liturgical. When I was growing up, there weren’t the proliferation of Protestant sects that there are today (to me, a confirmation of the truth of Catholicism!). I agree that this kind of enthusiastic worship isn’t appropriate for Holy Mass—one of my pet peeves is that one of our Masses is just like this, and the new music director is determined to make it even more so. She’s even got a saxophone in what used to be the most “conservative” Sunday mass—it’s causing people to flee—sounds like a cocktail lounge in there.
It’s true that many of our new converts from more evangelical churches *love* this praise and worship music. I grant that it’s better than the stuff Catholics sing most of the time, but still…it doesn’t quite fit the solemnity of the occasion.
I will grant you this….fitting in hymns in a Mass is kind of difficult and can interrupt the natural flow of worship. In our services, there was time for a choir song (at which we never, never would think of applauding—it was for worship of God!). There’s no really good time for good choir music in the Mass—maybe at the offertory? but during Communion we’re expected to sing (another pet peeve of mine) plus the type of music has to be specific to Communion. But I remember that at some time in the history of the Church there were similar debates about introducing orchestral music (Handel, Mozart, etc.) and whether that was appropriate for Mass, and that was overcome over time.
Anyway, you’re probably right that I am attached to hymns….but they are so much better than the drivel in the Glory and Praise hymnals!! My greatest (or latest!) peeve is that there’s such an intransigence to introducing the rich history of Catholic music into the Mass (most of which I admit I’m ignorant of, because….we never hear it!). I couldn’t figure out, when I first converted, why there wasn’t any kind of open-mindedness to trying new things—gradually of course to get the congregation used to it—but there was this hostile attitude. Now I know more about the intra-church politics, dissidents, etc.
I converted because of the power of the Holy Eucharist, which our Lord graciously opened up to me—it had been right in front of me, the knowledge of it, but I didn’t see it at all—I mean I took a course on the Reformation where it was all explained, and somehow I must have figured taking it literally was something that just wasn’t done except in less enlightened minds and times (not part of my studies; just my own interpretation coming from my background. I had no reason to think it was otherwise.) This is the greatest miracle of my life. But it doesn’t make listening to ennervating sounds (loosely called music) most of the time any easier.
Also, I think that part of the history of Catholic music does include hymns, and that they can be incorporated into Mass as a development of the liturgy, if done properly. Just my 2 cents!
Hi Mary M-I see what you mean about Liturgy Police, and I agree—the same thing happens when we’re accused of being “Pharisees”. I hate that—I even told my priest about my confusion—that the church seemed to sound sort of Lutheran when it does this…putting a wedge between faith in Christ and our works. I have been through a great period of confusion since my conversion because I’m in a, for lack of a better word, liberal parish. But it can work the other way, too. One actually can become so rigid that everyone is expected to do the same things and we’re all watching each other. For instance, a friend pointed out to me the relative freedom of worship in the Byzantine Catholic church near us. Yes, they’re even more liturgical than the novus ordo, but they actually don’t mind if you prostrate, or kneel or sit in the pew. Everyone is totally focused on active participation…there’s chanting every second and a real flow to the liturgy. I understand their worship looks more like our Tridentine worship because it wasn’t affected by Vatican II (don’t worry, I understand their sensitivity to Latins trying to make them Tridentine—I don’t mean that).
We’ll have to agree to disagree about receiving the Host from the priest. I do it mainly because I know he washes his hands after distributing and I’m aware of the problem of particles being dropped. I do receive the Cup from the EMofHC.
God bless!
Donna, fitting hymns into the Mass does not “interrupt the natural flow of worship” - the hymns, acclamations, and other music ARE the flow of worship. Music is NOT icing on the cake, to be added if someone feels like it. A music-less Sunday Mass is not envisioned in the Missal, current or incoming.
So many “traditionalists” are unaware that when the organ was first introduced into use in church, it was widely rejected and scorned, much like Glory & Praise and other remarks above. The organ - like guitars and pianos - was “bar music”, not worthy of using to accompany singing praises to God. The organ, using stops labeled “violin”, “trumpet”, and the like, was seen as taking jobs from violinists, trumpeters, and the rest of the orchestra.
Until the reforms of Vatican II, the main role of the congregation was to show up, pray quietly, and receive the Eucharist. Until the current Missal, there was no mention of a congregation.
So Mass was so much simpler for us: we didn’t have to overtly pay attention and know what was going on. A bell would ring to signal us that something was happening in case we drifted off, for example. But the choir would sing for us, the altar boys were trained to respond to the prayers for us, and more.
Don’t blame the current Mass on how various priests or musicians or liturgists have taken their liberties. That too is an old tradition. In fact, the Council of Trent was convened to address these very concerns. So if a priest or other leader is taking liberties, he can very well say he’s just returning to tradition.
To some, a return to “how things were done before V2” is a return to less responsibility in the worship we were supposedly gathered to do. If one wishes to invoke tradition, one needs to state “whose” tradition. The Mass, as it exists today, is closer to our roots than the previous 4-500 years ever was. Not all tradition is good and worthy.
Maybe that’s what scares some people?
‘Lord I am not worthy that you should come unto my roof, say but the word and my soul shall be healed’...is the way I remember it as a child and it is far more beautiful than Lord I am not worthy to receive… etc. Most importantly, it is scriptural, the connection with the current verbage is lost.
Our Mass is very well ‘orchestrated’ if you will. It is like a dance and a drama and how and when each participant goes up to read, serve etc must be carefully and purposefully choreographed. We want lectors and Extra Ordinary ministers to be ‘called’ from the community, but we have very specific ‘rules’, times etc. It works well. I do agree that changing the response of the Prayers of the Faithful is disruptive. Our parish does it for every season and I dislike it very much although again, a lot of thought is put into it and to its appropriateness to the season.
I think what I will not like is the change from our response of ‘It is right to give him thanks and praise’ to what I am told will be, ‘It is right’. My understanding is that the former was in use since the 2nd century so why we need to trucate it I do not understand. I hope what I read is incorrect.
The most important thing is that we get a good explanation of why the changes are important. Nothing ‘dumbed down’.
Rick: On the one hand, good to know hymns are kosher for Catholics! On the other…..does this mean that in 300 years, “Gather Us In” might be highbrow ::::gasp!::::
Mihovil
“They were right, and I would have been among them if present. The EOM are envisaged for exceptional circumstances, but our bishops have turned it into regular event, and, accordingly, permit these ministers to be unlawfully referred to as “Eucharistic” or “Special” ministers. In this situation of lawlessness what an individual, who knows the rule, can in conscience do but make up his mind and judge for himself whether the situation is really exceptional; which situation, in this country, is hardly ever the case.
Besides, while the use of the EMOE is in exceptional circumstance permitted, there is no rule demanding from an individual to receive from them.
The accusation of “pride” is uncharitable. The abusive practice in this country humiliates Our Lord, it is subversive of the doctrine of transubstantiation and priesthood. What for are the priests if they are not to be the ministers of this great Mystery of our Faith? Instead, one sees the situations where priest sits in the sanctuary, while an immodestly dressed woman gives the Communion.”
Movil - I take great offense to your generalizations. First of all I am NEVER dress immodestly. My husband is in formation to be a Deacon and both of us have nothing but the highest reverence for the Eucharist as are all the EMs
in my parish. Actually I find this comment must uncharitable.
The Church permits EMs and my Pastor does utilize EMs for the simple reason that we have two back-to-back masses and Communion is under both species.
It is not up to the laity to decide what is proper and what is not.
A word of comfort to those who find contemporary Church music excruciating. (It is, actually.) It’s really no worse than the music that came out in the ‘60s & ‘70s, which has simply - vanished. Ultimately, mud sinks.And about the Gloria: , no, the Latin does not have what we would call rhythm and certainly not rhyme; such things are directly in conflict with Latin rhetoric and would have been scorned by whoever composed this prayer in Latin. The system of music you describe, however, is based on the normal way of singing Latin texts. It fits Latin. It can be made to fit english by persons with sensitive ears and a good basic knowledge of chant forms. Since most of our current church musicians’ highest skill is plaigarism they undoubtedly set English very poorly to chants devised for Latin.
Let me first comment about refusal to receive Holy Communion unless from the Priest. Those who know the history of the Catholic Church are aware of the “Raphaelans”. During the early centuries of the Church it was common to take the Holy Communion to those who - due to illness or old age - were unable to attend Mass. The Church selected young boys - The Raphaelans - to take Holy Communion to them in their homes after the Holy Mass and that was OK. The same used to happen during the persecutions where the Holy Communion was taken to the prisoners who were due to be executed. So it is also OK these days to have the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and Nuns distributing the Holy Communion, especially in Parishes like here in our country where you have very many people receiving Holy Communion - even during lunch-time Weekday Masses. The Eucharistic Ministers are not just picked at random. They are carefully selected and vetted and they then undergo a period of preparation before they are formally Inducted and Commissioned as Eucharistic Ministers. Here, we all seem to be forgetting the Church’s Magisterium regarding Governing and Teaching Authority of the Universal Catholic Church. On the question of hymns during the Holy Mass, the Catholic Hymns which are sung during the Holy Mass fit the Season and the particular Liturgy. We have hymns for the Liturgy of the Word, The Offertory, the Liturgy of the Eucharist and Recessional hymns. And these hymns follow the Liturgical Calendar of the Catholic Church. Therefore, we have specific hymns for Advent Season, Christmas Season, Lenten Season, Easter Season, Easter Octave Season, Ascension of our Lord, Pentecost and Sundays of Ordinary Time. There are also specific hymns for the Feasts of Our Lady. The Catholic Church does not just pick hymns at random. They must fit in with the Liturgical Celebration and the Season. Again, we have special hymns for the Easter Tridium - Holy Thursday Mass of the Chrism, the Evening Mass which is The Mass of the Last Supper where the Washing of the Feet has been re-introduced, Easter Vigil hymns - and Easter Octave Season. It would help if those who are unfamiliar with why Catholics do what they do during the Holy Mass, would take time to seek explanation. Our Worship during the Holy Mass needs to be suitably solemn to foster the disposition of prayerful attitude, being aware of the Miracle which takes place during the Holy Mass. Any gestures, either by the Priest or the worshipers have a deep meaning and all are means to ensuring the Celebrants and the Faithful remain in the appropriate prayerful disposition during this Eucharistic Celebration which is the Apex of our Catholic Faith. As I stated,each piece of the Vestments worn by the Priest during the Holy Mass, the colour of the cloths covering the Altar and the Tabernacle to the colour of the flowers decorating the Church, all have symbolic and worshipful meaning and convey profound holy messages to the Faithful. It appears to me that the Catechists, especially those who prepare the converts who join the Catholic Church, need to do far much more to impart richness and the meaning of all these gestures and nuances and the unique character and holiness of the Catholic form of Worship, not just about the Holy Mass and the rubrics but also the meaning of the gestures that take place during the Holy Mass. As one commentator stated above, converts need to familiarize themselves with the Divine Office to be able to begin to understand the depth and Devotional aspect of the Catholic Faith.
First of all Jimmy the term contemplative mode is not really accurate for most of us. Contemplation is the action of God in a soul, leading it where He wants it to go. The Mass is active prayer in which we should meditate on the words of the priest at the altar. If we are called to change our response to the prayer of the faithful it should not set us off. Of course if the response does not fit the prayer that is another problem, and one the priest should resolve before the Mass. He should read the prayers before hand and hear whether they are correct. Our response should come from our heart; not as a knee jerk response. Many times there is a point in a Preface or in one of the Eucharistic Prayers that e.g. “through Christ our Lord…” invariably someone will say “Amen” because the phrase cited is a “trigger” for the response. We are not supposed to be responding out of habit but from our heart. To be sure we are supposed to use the prescribed formula; but, after we learn it we should make it our own prayer. Active participation does not always mean doing something. Sometimes it means to listen in silence. At other times it requires us to speak or sing. Sometimes we are called to stand or sit or kneel. All these demand that we be really present heart, mind and body and not daydreaming or getting upset at errors or abuses that may occur. It is not not easy; but, then neither was hanging on a cross is or pleasant. Peace and all good.
Rick Reed
“A music-less Sunday Mass is not envisioned in the Missal, current or incoming.” - I am afraid, the claim is out of date: the Summorum Pontificum makes it perfectly clear that there are two Roman Missals, and the Low Mass is typical of the traditional one.
“Until the reforms of Vatican II, the main role of the congregation was to show up, pray quietly”. - I am afraid the claim is wrong again. To start with, the present revolution, rather than reform, was not envisaged by Vatican II (one should read the LG, if one knows what these letters stand for). But that apart, there were basically two versions of the mass.
The High Mass, in which Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei were sung by choir or congregation; and those who were not lazy had enough time to read the vernacular text, and gradually understand the Latin text.
The Low Mass, which was silent. We were free to chose between meditation with attention to what priest does on the altar, prayers of our own choice, reading abbreviated versions of priest’s prayers, reading in vernacular the prayers of the priest, partly or fully, and reading the Latin text with which those who were not lazy could have gradually familiarize themselves, and eventually understand. So, everyone was able to participate in the way that suits him best. The Commenter can rest assured that his “active” participation is in no way more pleasing to God than the participation of an old lady who recited the rosary in silence.
In the New Mass we have no choice but to be silent or mechanically repeat the same phrases loudly with others, whether with attention or not. The endless priestly monologue and loud responses by “active” participants make it impossible to compose for those whom this artificially imposed “participation” doesn’t psychologically suit. So, one has no choice but patiently wait until all this “meaningful” event is over, in the hope that the “president” will not irritate him with his “interesting” creativity, that the hand shakers will not come to him from another end of the church, that after Communion he will not, while kneeling, have to stir into less decent parts of the body of sitting communicants etc.
“The Mass, as it exists today, is closer to our roots than the previous 4-500 years ever was.” - Wrong again. The Roman Canon is a living evidence of continuity of the present Church with the Church of the by-gone ages right down to the early centuries. In the New Mass it is rarely used, and mainly replaced by the doctrinally defective EPII, which is a striking example of liturgical archaeologizm, deplored by Pius XII in his Encyclical Mediator Dei. The Commenter can easily get hold of that Encyclical if he is keen to know the difference between Tradition as a process in continuity very much alive today; and the archeologizm which is an unhealthy attempt to excavate things abandoned by the Church, in mistaken belief that the old things a better than the subsequent developments merely because they are excavations. Indeed “Not all tradition is good and worthy”, and “Maybe that’s what scares some people”.
Mary,
I did not suggest that you personally dressed immodestly, or that you did not have the sense of reverence toward the Most Holy Eucharist. I am, however, familiar with the Church’s documents, which, must be distinguished from what diocesan liturgical gurus or misguided parish priests make out of them and sell to naïve laity. I wish all the best to your husband in his preparation for ordination, and would have no objection to receive Communion from him once he were a deacon. If you are offended because I have given you an opportunity to see the truth there is nothing I can do about it.
The very reasons you find for the utilization of the EMs are wrong. What harm would it do to communicants and others if they had to kneel 15 min. longer in the church in silent prayer. Are you suggesting that the less they pray in silence – the better for them? Is it really necessary to get rid of the Mass as soon as possible? If you have an opportunity, go to the Orthodox Church, or the Coptic Church to see how long their Liturgy is, and how the Holy Communion is administered. Or to the Ukrainian Catholic Church where you can both fullfil Sunday obligation and receive Communion.
And were does it stand in documents that the Communion under both species had to be given at all, not to mention that it should be given from the chalice, and adduced as a reason for utilization of the EMs?
True “It is not up to the laity to decide what is proper and what is not”, but within the limits of the Church law they can articulate their opinion, and, also within the same limits, decide whether and how they themselves will receive Holy Communion. It is not up to the diocesan liturgists or priests to decide either; on the contrary they are particularly bound to adhere to the low, as it stands and in its spirit, because they are responsible not only for themselves but also for those entrusted to them.
Mary42
I have just replied to another Mary, and will not repeat what is already there. The story of what was going on in the early centuries is not applicable to the present situation, because the liturgy and the doctrine go along together, and develop in dependance to one another. The pressing sense of reverence toward the Eucharist, and the deeper understanding of the ministerial priesthood, have gradually led to the practice that is common in all Christian Churches which have valid Priesthood and Eucharist, and still obtains in the Eastern Churches, both separated and Catholic. The only monstrosity is the present practice in the Western Church introduced by innovators. It is far from limited to the past cases of “illness and old age”, or “prisoners who were due to be executed”; and I know of no record of the “lunch–time” Eucharist, or anything like it, being the reason for utilization of lay ministers in the past. The practice goes even beyond what was envisaged by the document that introduced it (Immensae caritatis, 1973).
Is there going to be a daily missal released in unison with the reform of the liturgy, so us visual people can follow along more comfortably?
Father John Higgins wrote: I’ve seen some fairly insane things happen at Mass. When I was a Deacon (the year before ordination to Priesthood) I witnessed a “Clown Mass”, where the Priest was dressed as a clown. It literally made me ill. As a newly ordained Priest I heard my pastor say “Today, if you cannot receive Communion for any reason, please come up and get a jelly bean for Jesus!” He handed out jelly beans during Communion time from a Waterford Crystal bowl.
John, I heard about that! Around the same time, I think, The Jesuits at the university where I was studying had a “communion service” using—GASP—Beer and Stollen (complete with icing and raisins). While we participated, I kept thinking, “This can’t really be The Eucharist?” and “Where’s the symbolism?” and my best friend, always a smart alleck, said loudly, “Looks like I got Jesus’ eye!” as he pointed to a raisin.
Along with some really BAD folk guitar music, the post-Vatican II era really had some dreadful abuses, to say nothing of the BAD theology that was going around.
A pastor friend who attended Seminex (Concordia Seminary in Exile) following the split the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod says that the Saint Louis Jesuits regularly had joint communion services with Lutherans either at the university church or down the street at the office building being used as the Lutheran seminary!
Like your example, these are more than pet peeves. These are serious violations of liturgy and in both cases, contrary to the Teaching of The Church.
There are things that priests can modify and things we can’t.
What you and I mentioned could be part of a discussion on “clerical horror stories”.
Father Robert George
The various “Bread of Life”, “King of Kings” adaptations to the Agnus Dei in stead of “Lamb of God.” This seems at least tacitly accepted by the bishops, since they do this even when the bishop presided. I love the parish just north of my own, where they chant the Agnus Dei in Latin. Repeating the “Lamb of God” is intended and replacing with other invocations is one of my pet peaves.
Dave
Okay, I gotta admit - I’m confused. At least in this forum, there seems to be a large interest in getting rid of this current Missal, and a large interest in Latin. I’m not opposed to Latin, am not opposed to the current Missal, but am truly curious: if there is so much opposition to the current Missal, and if there is so much desire to go back to Latin, where actually is it?
In nearly 2 decades of full-time liturgical and music ministry leadership, encompassing 3 states and even more parishes, the above stated desires were rare and not at all vocal. In fact, many times when I’ve tried to use Latin, I was met with resistance that far outweighed those who yearned for using Latin.
So in the US, are there only a few dozen such people, and 2/3 of them are active in this forum? Have not the US Catholics spoken “with their feet”? Are not the Masses in the vernacular - as in the early days of the Church - because that’s what the majority of people really want?
Based on some remarks above, a newcomer to the conversation could easily determine that with the desire to move to an older missal and Latin comes uncharitable acts and words. One can’t tell another that something is better by using such language to support it. When yearning for tradition, the first question should be “whose tradition?”. Judging from the above, many here yearn to return to the days of their youth. I’m guessing we’d never know that it was successful - there was no internet in those days.
Mihovil - My husband who is in formation for the Diaconate is a convert from Judaism. Before he became Catholic he accompanied me to mass on occasion. He was able to hear the mass in the vernacular and he especially like the sign of peace. One can choose to be reverent or irreverent at Mass. I find great peace and joy being at mass and would love to go daily if I could. My responses are not mechanical and come from the heart and I know many people who are at mass that feel the same way.
Your comment, “If you are offended because I have given you an opportunity to see the truth there is nothing I can do about it.” is absolutely ridiculous. There is no one more orthodox in their faith than I am. People exercising their opinion at mass as you indicate goes directly against the GIRM that emphasizes unity. Making a “statement” at Mass is not where it should be made.
Regarding your comment “And were does it stand in documents that the Communion under both species had to be given at all” I would like to direct your attention to the GIRM And were does it stand in documents that the Communion under both species had to be given at all,” 85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. below, no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.73
I am very familiar with the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I was raised a Ukrainian Catholic and became a Latin Rite Catholic when my husband became Catholic. Their liturgies are beautiful.
The point I am trying to make is we just need to be obedient. If the church decides to make changes and I will be obedient to the changes. This calls for humility and adopting an attitude of “i know better than the Church”.
You know, it would’ve been nice if in 1970 they simply let the Tridentine Mass be, and say “instead of Latin only, we’ll now have accurate translations of this Mass into your vernacular.” I so wished that when the Pope took restrictions off celebration of the Tridentine Mass, he’d allow vernacular, but no.
More and more, I feel the tug of the Eastern Rite on my heart. They use the vernacular, but don’t horse with the Liturgy. The one used is the St. Basil version, which is a streamlining of St. James’ Liturgy. Yup, that St. James, the Apostle. The human voice is the only musical instrument allowed.
Whether said in Russian, Greek, or English, the only time I saw anything in the Latin Rite in person (yeah the Vatican does it right, but it’s the Vatican, not the average parish) that came close to the majesty of glory given to God in the Eastern Divine Liturgy was when I saw my first Tridentine Mass in Chicago four years ago. It was then that I realized what older people longed for when they longed for Latin wasn’t the language, but the sense of bringing ourselves up to give glory to Jesus, rather than to have hippie Masses to bring Him down to us. And New Mass meant church renovation, which was basically a stripping. It seems the combination of the vernacular mixed with do it your self, wing-it Masses and bare naked iconoclastic churches poisoned people on vernacular Masses.
Jesus came down to us 2000 years ago, and He comes to us every day in our mundane lives - but not to stay down with us, but to lift us to Himself. Can we give Him our best one hour a week? Even the most tiny and humble Eastern Rite (and Orthodox) chapels in poor places are adorned inside to make your sole focus to be worship of God and veneration of his most holy mother and the saints. The surrounding houses and buildings are plain whitewashed buildings, while Church gets the love. And I find it hard to accept the bare sanctuaries we’ve put up, where our secular buildings have all the nice stuff and God’s house looks like a bare, stark, half finished garage in an empty house awaiting the new owners to move in, and the new owners aren’t coming.
Someone asked if there was a line-by-line explanation of the changes and the reason for them. Father John Zuhlsdorf has been providing such an explanation in his “What Does the Prayer Really Say” column in The Wanderer. His website is http://wdtprs.com/blog/ I know archives of his articles must be somewhere on his website, but I have spent an hour looking for that particular one (and for the name of the person—on this page—who asked for the explanation). I’m sorry but my dyslexia and I give up, and refer you to the website. May your hunt for answers be sucessful.
I am also old (88) and had memeorized the beautiful original magnificat and agree with Rosina about “going unto the altar of my Lord”,
I also had memorized the prayer said when washing of the hands.
But I miss most of all the beginning of the gospel of John.
I didn’t read every comment nor did I carefully read the original article but it bothered me when the author said “like I said instead of “as I said”.
No matter what there will always be changes-the hierarchy has to justify their being there.
All these years I have tried to ignore the blatant hypocrisy of the church.
As my friend and I agreed, we will remain Catholic in spite of everything.
Rick Reed, I’m sorry to say your comments regarding “yearning for their youth” are baseless. I am 24 years old, and I’m around the same age as many of the parents of the young families at our vibrant Latin Mass community.
Who resisted those changes to Latin? Where I come from, it would not be the youngest generation of devout; rather, it’s the older generation who was young in the ‘70s who cling to the vernacular and defend it with the same hostility that they argue in favor of abortion and priestesses.
Moreover, how widespread, really, is the option to attend a Latin Mass? Can people really vote for their feet in a one-party town?
... vote *with* their feet ...
Two pet peeves:
1. Presiders who improvise what should be formula prayers, esp. liberties with the English translation of Orate Fratres. When the presider messes with this, the Congregation doesn’t know when to start: “May the Lord receive the Sacrifice at your hands . . .”
2. The greeting of peace is IN THE WRONG PLACE. One of the Gospels quotes Jesus as saying: “If you go to offer your gift at the altar, and recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift and be reconciled with your brother; then return . . .” If we are going to keep that, put it near the beginning of Mass; say, right before the Confiteor. It would make better sense there.
Also, those with whom we have grievances are mostly those in our families and acquaintances, not necessarily those in adjacent pews. So we are shaking hands with the wrong people. Where the greeting of peace is, in the OF, it really breaks the flow of the liturgy.
TeaPot562
Mary M. – The word “ridiculous” doesn’t contribute to the strength of your argument.
But that aside, I simply can’t understand why did you change the rite, and replaced the beautiful Byzantine Liturgy with this new “manufacture”, to use the word of Cardinal Ratzinger. Read his book The Spirit of the Liturgy or his addresses to the Fongobault Liturgical Conference 2001. Although my Latin Rite parish church is only 10 min. walk from my home, I prefer to travel two hours to get to the Ukrainian church and fulfil the Sunday obligation there. The Byzantine Mass is superior to the New Mass, and particularly so if a deacon is available because it is designed to be celebrated with a deacon. And it is indeed the proper use of the deacon, who in the New Mass, stands uselessly all the time. In the Ukrainian Church your husband would be a blessing, because they are short of deacons. But, I guess, at the time he was thinking of conversion, he had only a vague idea the Eastern Rites in the Church.
Look at the way in which the Pope gives the Holy Communion. Are there lay ministers (are there in the Ukrainian Church, or any Eastern Church?) at his masses, do people “partake of the chalice” ? The “instances when” the latter “is permitted” according to the GIRM, are exceptions, concessions rather than the rule. And by pursuing the development of legislation by which this, earlier non-existing, practice turned to be frequent, one can clearly realize that the Popes had no choice but to give in, more and more, to disobedience, and to legalize what was originally illegal. (By the way, the same was the case with the Communion in the hand, lay ministers, girl altar servers, all of which started as blatant acts of disobedience pushed by pressure groups and imposed on ill-informed congregations. The vandalization of high altars, and their replacement with Protestant tables, with the Mass versus populum is also a product of a pressure, but that is another story.)
I have nothing against Communion under both kinds in principle: it is a traditional practice in all Eastern Churches. But none of them have it by licking the chalice – a disgusting, unhygienic practice, not to mention the risk of sacrilege if the Holy Blood is spilled. Those who really believe in Transubstantiation would never come to the idea of introducing it. As you know, in the Ukrainian Church the Consecrated Species of Bread are in chalice, and the priest drops both Species into the mouth of a communicant without the latter having to lick the spoon. There is no reason, it is actually a legitimate option, why our priest couldn’t dispose with “special ministers” by having recourse to simple intinction, if he is so eager to have “the signs … stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice”. But no, it is necessary to promote the Protestant concept of “universal priesthood” of all at the cost of the Catholic notion of a priest acting in persona Christi.
As you should know, there is no “sign of peace” in the Ukrainian Mass, except a liturgical form of it among the concelebrating clergy, as it is also the case in the Tridentine High Mass of which, evidently, you have no clue, and – presumably as a sign of obedience - do not seem interested, although the Holy Father wants it back.
Don’t misunderstand me, I see nothing wrong with the sign of peace as such: it is retained in the congregations of all Precalcedonic Oriental Churches (hopefully, the readers know what I am talking about), but again, in its liturgical form - not as a handshake - which (liturgical form) varies in different Churches. What is annoying is that pedestrian streetly handshake, without precedent in the history of Christianity, introduced by the innovators, in which one, out of mere politeness in order not to offend the well intended gestures of misled individuals, had to “participate”, willingly or not. Not to mention having to put up with those who “cordially” walk around (against the stipulation of the Redemptoris Sacramentum) or wave from distance, or those who kiss one another etc. I have even attended the Mass in which at the very beginning we were invited, bullied in effect, to turn to each other “with a smile”.
“I find great peace and joy being at mass” – fine; but what about those who don’t because the endless monologue by the “president”, and loud “active” participation of the congregation do not allow them to compose, but turn them into mechanical “participants”, because they have no other option?
“There is no one more orthodox in their faith than I am” – excellent; but how then can you find a joy in the ritual during which the “presider” stands all the time turned toward the King of kings with his – back?
What about the EP II – the most frequently used canon - in which no word “sacrifice” appears although the mass is supposed to be a recognisable sign of what it actually is, i.e. the “making present” (Trent), “perpetuation” (Vatican II) on our altars, of Christ’s Sacrifice.
“If the church decides to make changes and I will be obedient to the changes. This calls for humility and adopting an attitude of “I know better than the Church” – yes, but one must be careful not to take as of the Church everything that is taught, required or done by a local priest or his diocesan aparatchicks, even bishop if he is not in real communion with all the other bishops and the popes, not only in this section of the Church’s history but of the whole history. The “church” as seems conceived by you has done so much harms to the unity of the Church, for example, by open or subtle suppression and latinization of Eastern Rite Catholics. It is indisputable, another example, that the New Mass is an obstacle to the restoration of unity with the Orthodox Church. Can you imagine them ever establishing a communion with the “church” of lay ministers, when according to their ancient canons a woman may not even enter the sanctuary? Or the Mass versus populum?
Mihovil - “why did you change the rite, and replaced the beautiful Byzantine Liturgy with this new “manufacture”, to use the word of Cardinal Ratzinger.” I changed to the Latin Rite Catholic because I was drawn to it and also because it was my desire that my husband and I be the same. EWTN was a major influence in my life and for the first time I knew and loved my Catholic faith as presented in the Latin Rite. I am grateful to Mother Angelica for having such an impact on my life.
I don’t know where you have gone to mass but your experiences have never been mine. I don’t understand the hostility you have but I have seen it in several people who are members of my parish and they stand out like sore thumbs as they “protest” at Mass.
One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is peace. If we are angry peace cannot enter. Why spend so much time and effort on being so angry? The King of Kings is with us.
I prefer, “Lord, have mercy.” I never hear it at mass, but it’s one of the recommended responses in the missal, and it would bring us slightly closer to our Eastern brothers.
And, after listening to countless inappropriate “prayers of the faithful”, I think it would really help to stick to the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which seems to adequately cover all bases: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
When I went to Purdue, a famous football saying was “Boiler The F$#@ Up” which evolved from “Boiler Up”. Sometimes, the Eucharistic ministers would be wearing a shirt with the acronym “BTFU” along with their face piercings, tattoos, ripped up jeans, and other things which belong on MTV.
This was at “The Catholic Center at Purdue.”
They also had a rock and roll drum set, acoustic guitars, flutes, clarinetts, recorders, a piano, saxophone, trumpets, and tambourines in their disco band, I mean choir, or whatever it was. A few times I had to wait after communion while a choir member would sing a solo. That goes beyond Liturgical abuse, it’s physical abuse.
Mary M. – I am concerned that we, myself at any rate, might be testing the Blog Owner’s patience. So, before concluding the correspondence, I will only say what I have to say; otherwise I might be misunderstood as if being hostile to the New Mass in so far is it is the Mass essentially, I mean the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist: Transubstantiation and Sacrifice.
Whenever the rite is valid, that is, when it effects the Transubstantiation and Sacrifice, the Mass is of an infinite value, whether Tridentine or New, Latin or of one of the Eastern Rites, in Catholic Church or any in the Eastern Churches separated from us, as you say: the “King of Kings is with us” – on offer. But what an individual will actually get out of it depends on his disposition, and the latter in its turn is affected by the ritual in which the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is embedded; and there is the problem: if the ritual is inadequate it can adversely affect the Faith, moral life, or both; particulary of thoose who have a defective knowledge of doctrine, and experience their Faith through the Liturgy.
I have, in earlier comments mentioned some of these inadequacies, which a Catholic cannot but resent, and in some cases be literally – hostile, which doesn’t mean the hostility toward the New Mass taken generally, although judging from what is frequently reported on the Internet, some are probably invalid.
One can hardly, however, have anything against the New Mass in the London Oratory, for example. They haven’t removed the altar, the tabernacle is still in its place, there is no table in front of the altar, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist is offered toward the Blessed Sacrament (let’s call it “Liturgical East”, because the apse of the church is on the North). During the Liturgy of the Word a priest stands behind lectern, which is on a side of the sanctuary, and faces people but is not turned with his back to the Blessed Sacrament.
When crossing the sanctuary he always genuflects toward it. There are no girls altar servers, no sign of peace, no lay ministers: if there are many communicants other priests come to help, the altar rails are still in place and people kneel for Communion, no Communion under both kinds. The Communion in the hand is overtly discouraged, but they have to put up with it if somebody insists. On Sundays, one Mass is Low Tridentine, others are Novus Ordo, with EP 1 in most cases. The High Mass is Novus Ordo in Latin. So, all is according to rubrics and perfectly orthodox. One of the priests has been called to Rome to serve the Congregation for Worship.
What prompted my comment were your words referred to those eight who refused to receive Communion from you, and, I guess, might have been the same as those who “stand out like sore thumbs”. It reminded me of a correspondent of mine, who was hostile to the New Mass, and wrote to me: I am approaching the end of my life, and I am travelling every Sunday to reach a distant place where I can attend the true Mass, because I am not going to risk my eternal salvation for attending these new masses which encourage – heresy. I was taken aback, and initially, said to myself: How misguided he is; but later: How merciless are those who have brought him in that situation. Supposing your eight are misguided too, what your parish is prepared to do to help them, instead of condemning them?
Now, after Summorum Pontificum, what your Parish Priest is doing to make it happen? What is wrong with the Tridentine Mass that it couldn’t be offered on, say, one Sunday every three months? What your Bishop is doing about it? What the parishioners are doing about it? Is it the Church or the “Church” that is against the Pope and those eight parishioners? And have you read the Summorum Pontificum? - God bless!
Carl, with the exception of the sax and piano, all these instruments have historically been used since long before the time of Jesus. (Drum sets aren’t “rock and roll”; how they are played is “rock and roll”.) I agree that the shirt choice was wrong, given the known connotation. Face piercings and tattoos are signs of honor in some societies, some even in America.
A choir member singing a solo after Communion is not in the current Missal - Communion is supposed to be about unity, the congregation is supposed to lift their voices in song as one (GIRM 87). Communion is not “me” time, not time for “my” private prayer. After Communion, then we are to have time for private thanksgiving, not a solo. See GIRM 88. As someone mentioned above, too many priests fly past this opportunity.
Lord forbid that someone should smile at you in Mass. Or shake your hand.
Personally, one of my most moving experiences was at Midnight Mass in Rome in 1989. At the sign of peace everyone turned to neighbors and said peace in their own languages…. I didn’t understand anything literally, but knew what they wee saying nonetheless.
But .... oops, they were not speaking Latin. ooops, the Pope was not ad orientam ... Mass was in Italian. I’m sure a hymn was sung. Must have been an anti-pope up there.
Really.
To Max the Cat - I know what you mean. Lately I’ve attended a parish with such sweet people, filled with the Holy Spirit. The church is perhaps a bit short on funds, so their choir members and musicians are all volunteers - and the music isn’t the qualitu as in other, more wealthy parishes—yet, I LOVE IT!
Odd how we can overlook so many of our pet peeves, when the people in a parish are like family. In this parish, the pastor is WONDERFUL. He knows the Bible and he can preach and teach, making the readings come alive, and causing them to be relevant to our lives, Monday-Saturday. Just like your experience of the Sign of Peace, where you had no idea of what was voiced - you knew what they MEANT. Pure joy - Holy Spirit joy.
Translating into heartfelt WORSHIP!
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. I found this site because of the blog about Obama’s Memorial Service. Y’all wonder why most of us find mass boring? You can think about anything while Father drones on and on and on and on. It doesn’t speak to our souls unless you’re old or strange. I mean most of my friends don’t even go to mass anymore. It’s not relevant. We’d all rather go to a praise church that speaks to us and is not the same boring thing week after week. That’s where the preachers in the praise churches got it right, they speak to us and relate to us. Jesus becomes real which is more than I can say for what goes on in mass even after Catholic grade school, high school and college. Boring, irrlevent just like everything y’all seem concerned about. This site just proves to me how out of touch the Catholic church is, especially “conservative” Catholics, both politically and in religion. You are the old, dying church; we are the living, new church and unless the Catholic church can relate in ways we can relate to, there’s nothing there for us. No matter how much you people !@#$%, moan and discuss.
Given a choice between a constant liturgy with the worst preacher in the world and loosey-goosey liturgy with a charismatic preacher with a knack for the novel, I will choose the constant, unchanging liturgy every time.
Here’s the fact of the matter: A constant liturgy helps be centered on Christ. An engaging pastor helps you be engaged in the pastor.
I have a Protestant friend who says she hates how lame her pastor preaches and says she’ll never go to that church again. I told her she’d be better off as a Catholic, because Mass isn’t about the sermon—- it’s about Christ in the Eucharist.
Abysmally poor preaching should always be better, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t crumble because of it is a strength of the Church.
Ryan: When your pastor dies and the new one comes in, what do you get? For many Protestant denominations, the answer is inevitably schism. If you’re looking for a church ordained and empowered by God, look for one that perseveres even in cases of human frailty, not those that flourish _only_ when the men in charge seem on fire.
Benjamin, bud, I betcha anything, most people are daydreaming about almost anything during mass. I know during 12 years of Catholic school and then more @ Catholic university, that was true for my friends and me.
My Dad goes to mass every Sunday, or sometimes on Saturday night, but he promptly falls asleep as soon as the sermon starts and I’ve seen this over and over with lots of people.
Praise churches don’t have “loosey goosey liturgy”. That just shows your age and stereotype. They are led by the Spirit and make Jesus real to people. I didn’t really have a personal relationship with Jesus til my girl friend took me to church where the Word is really preached and not by some celibate dude in robes with music that sucks and repeated words that after all the years in Catholic school (and college) I could recite in my sleep.
My age is 24. Is that considered venerable in your congregation? ;-)
Funny you should mention celibacy, too. Part of the reason my Protestant friend doesn’t like her home church is because the pastor’s wife talks back during his sermon and the pastor’s daughter leads a horrible example for the other young people. It’s hardly bias talking. Incidentally, when the discipline of priestly celibacy was last considered in 2006, it was the Eastern Rite priests who do have wives which warned very clearly about the problems that go along with loosing that discipline, and they’re part of why the discipline was not relaxed.
I don’t tire of the words, because once I know the words I begin to understand their meaning. The wonderful thing about God is that we can’t fully understand Him, that there is always more meaning to ponder and wonder. That, friend, is the second step after recitation I think you may have missed.
I do warn you, too, out of charity: Concentrate on too much how you feel, and the moment your feelings evaporate is the moment your faith, or at least church attendance, falters.
We’re the same age but I’d bet that I’m more typical than you. Just wondering when they’re going to snag you for the brotherhood or priesthood? LOL
I remember that there was one guy in high school who was really into religion class and got all excited every time the school had vocation day. He never dated, honestly, and was in the Chess Club, The Photography Club, The French Club. He worked on the paper and was kind of a loner. We thought he was probably gay. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that if he is, b.t.w. but he didn’t have any friends that I remember. I don’t even know what happened to him after graduation. Didn’t care, but I bet he’s a priest somewhere.
Where my girl friend and I go, the pastor and his wife are really great and they know the Bible better than any priest I’ve ever met. They’ve got two young kids and they never act up. The congregation has a great praise band which does stuff that’s relevant and that relates. We have Communion, with bread and wine just like Catholics, every week except that pastor doesn’t place in tounge. You know, but Jesus’ got to live in our lives. I’m finally putting faith into practice and that’s not something most everybody can get from Catholicism. At least I don’t think so.
Mihovil - What is your objection to communion under both species or the sign of peace?
There are parishes in my area where people may attend the Latin Mass if they so choose. I honestly don’t believe the vast majority of parishioners would want to attend mass in Latin.I personally need to hear the mass in the vernacular and I do not want to be reading the translation. I also think if someone is going to feel spiritually empty or bored at Mass, attending a Latin Mass will have no bearing. Those that are reverent will be reverent regardless of what mass they attend or just sit in silence with Jesus before the Blessed Sacrament.
There are two things that I would prefer be done on a regular basis; the use of incense and having altar servers stand with lit candles while the Gospel is be proclaimed.
It really comes down to one tough question: Which church survives because Christ founded it and which church survives because the pastor’s a cool, smart guy and the music is “relevant?” What about when the pastor dies and is replaced by a less cool guy or a less smart guy, and what happens when the music isn’t “relevant?” Don’t just look at the first half of Mathew 16:18 to see where the Church is founded, but look at the second half. Hell itself shall not prevail against it—- if your focus at church is on the pastor and the music, mere death shall prevail against your faith, much less Hell.
And if you really believe the Eucharist at Mass is just bread and wine—- well, right there is why you found Mass lifeless. You’re looking at the pastor to be like Christ and not to the host to become Christ.
Ryan - “Where my girl friend and I go, the pastor and his wife are really great and they know the Bible better than any priest I’ve ever met…We have Communion, with bread and wine just like Catholics, every week except that pastor doesn’t place in tounge. You know, but Jesus’ got to live in our lives. I’m finally putting faith into practice and that’s not something most everybody can get from Catholicism. At least I don’t think so.”
The Protestant Church does not have it quite right in the area of interpreting the Bible. You may be receiving bread and wine but what you are receiving is vastly different than what you receive as a Catholic. Are you aware that when the priest prays the prayer of consecreation the bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine and becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus? You cannot receive Jesus in any Protestant Church under the appearance of bread and wine. There is no great gift than the Eucharist.
The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth and is so rich in history and tradition. It is sad that you were never able to discover it. Check out www.catholicscomehome.org.
Our faithful, traditional/conservative parish was recently merged with two other parishes as part of a vast smooshing together by the diocese. The new “convener” is the pastor of one of the killed parishes. Rather than blending our three parish cultures, as he constantly says we’re doing, we are instead doing things his way, which is a lean towards touchy-feely-squishy-happy-happy-joy-joy-kumbaya antics instead of the solemnity of the Mass. That means a lot of socializing before and during Mass; a different response every single week instead of “Lord, hear our prayer”; other different and likely self-invented wording during Mass; blue at Advent instead of purple and rose; letting the nun/pastoral associate give fundraising exhortations in lieu of a homily
(which, coincidentally, seem to touch on the Gospel of that week, like a mini-homily); reminiscing about his own past in lieu of a homily. There was apparently an uproar when the convener decided not to provide missals any longer, because one week the bulletin informed us they were going away because we weren’t supposed to use missals, and the next week the new editions were there in abundance. After our family CCD commitments for this year are completed, we are joining a different parish, untouched by the diocesan parish killers, where the Mass is still held in reverence. We just can’t bring the children up in the Church as this convener portrays it to be.
I felt the pain when moved from Brasil to the US 10 years ago. In the beginning I danced in Portuguese as I was trying to contemplate/meditate the mass. Of course bought my missal and read every line I could and felt like a fish out of the water. Especially during the creed. In Brasil, the Apostle’s creed is said during mass; now imagine having to say the Nicaean creed from memory… Yes, it took forever. So reading is perfectly OK and slowly, steady and surely the rhythm flows and we finally dance withe the soul. After all, what is prayer for?
Ryan Allen:
“My Dad goes to mass every Sunday, or sometimes on Saturday night, but he promptly falls asleep as soon as the sermon starts and I’ve seen this over and over with lots of people.”
I fully understand your Dad because the same happens to me when I go to the New Mass. In my view, it was badly designed by bureaucrats, who even did not attempt to put their ideas on test in practice by employing experts to investigate what effect would their design have on congregation. They imagined that to have the prescribed text read loudly in vernacular was enough to ensure that the whole congregation would really listen, as different from passively “hear” what is being said, and do it all the time and in all circumstances; and that the congregation’s loud responses and recitations would guarantee everybody’s real participation as different verbal repetition. It may only a work for some and for a while.
However, if you are really interested in trying to be devout Catholic, I repeat: if you are interested, the option is not in going to a place where you will hear “the Word… really preached” by some eccentric who thinks he is “lead by the Spirit” and claims to be able to “make Jesus real to people”, help them to “establish personal relationship with Jesus”, and other nonsense. It wouldn’t be difficult for a psychologist to establish that the individuals, who believe that they had really achieved all that in such a simple way, don’t know what they is talking about, but parrot-like repeat the phrases they have heard, which at the most please them emotionally until they have been saturated.
If you are under compulsion to oppose your Dad, which is frequent phenomenon among young people, that doesn’t mean that you act rationally. He loves you, and he is trying to bring you up as a Catholic exactly because he loves you. Why dismiss it merely because he falls asleep? Why not try seriously – it does take time, effort, and self denial, but you might find if fulfilling. Why not try to learn what he knows about the Faith, and supplement it on your own initiative, not from silly handouts of the kind you had in school and college, but from the Catechism. You will find thousands of references to the Bible there – why not peruse, particularly now that the electronic media enables us to do it quickly and be spared from turning pages and pages each time when we want to read a particular reference; and rely, instead, on what a self-appointed “prophet” tells you.
If the New Mass puts you to sleep, go to the Tridentine Mass: you will find many options there that will help you to compose yourself – if you wish, as I said.
Say a Rosary, for example - the silence in the church will enable you to do it undisturbed. It is composed of direct quotations from the “Word”, or paraphrases or biblical ideas; and had been an inspiration to millions throughout centuries, both to uneducated people as well as to highly sophisticated intellectuals. Who can end up his life inspired by the cheap phrases of the kind you are now attached to?
If you are not disposed to pray – nobody is: we all have to make an effort – reflect in silence on what is going on in the Mass: you can’t learn it by relying on peripheral observations but have to learn about what the Mass is, what the Priesthood is etc. from reliable books. Is the priest really a “celibate dude”, or perhaps a man who has given up marriage, undergone seven years’ graduate level course, to make himself available to people, including you? Have you ever tried to find out why he is “in robes” ? What else you learn in your chosen place but the “repeated words” that after a while you will be able to “recite in my sleep” without understanding what you recite? Do you know that in the Mass the Sacrifice Jusus offered for us is really perpetuated for ever?
As an alternative to the reflection, you can pray the prayers of the Mass, abbreviated or as the priest prays but rendered in English, or gradually by reading the Latin text, and thus be united with the whole Church not only the present one, but throughout the history. You can’t tell me that it is difficult to learn that when the priest says: “Dominus vobiscum” means “The Lord be with you” etc. It all gradually comes, if one wants it.
Finally, you can go to the High Mass, in which what the congregation or choir is supposed to sing, is in Latin. Even if, to start with, you learn it by heart without understanding, a bilingual prayer book will help you to understand. Millions have been doing it throughout the history, why can’t you? Even if you are “sentenced” never to understand it, so what? You will still pray by singing. God is not only and Absolute Truth, but also and Absolute Beauty. The music is merely another attempt to come closer to the Creator, who is the Cause of all that is beautiful, not merely an intellectual concept articulated in words. In any case, He is the Mystery nobody understands. So, the claim that one understands the Mass, even if trained in Latin and Theology, should always be taken with a salt.
Wow - well, by comparison to Benjamin Baxter and Ryan Allen, I’m downright an old-timer…..with that said, I agree 100% with all Ryan Allen posted.
Responding to Benjamin Baxter who wrote on Friday, Jan 14, 2011 7:33PM:
“Given a choice between a constant liturgy with the worst preacher in the world and loosey-goosey liturgy with a charismatic preacher with a knack for the novel, I will choose the constant, unchanging liturgy every time” - CC RESPONSE - NOT ME!!! GIVE ME A PREACHER THAT KNOWS THE BIBLE AND CAN TEACH IT!
Benjamin continued; “I have a Protestant friend who says she hates how lame her pastor preaches and says she’ll never go to that church again. I told her she’d be better off as a Catholic, because Mass isn’t about the sermon—- it’s about Christ in the Eucharist.”
CC Responds - not all non-Catholic pastors are like the one above. Tune into Christian radio and hear men like Pastor David Jeremiah, John McArthur, even J. Vernon McGee (Through the Bible). Some saint said, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God.”
For a good Roman Catholic Bible study, there’s Jeff Cavin’s The Great Adventure, a journey through the Bible”. - I agree with about 97% of what he teaches. About 3% of it is, I think, to please bishops so he can get an ‘imprimatur’ on his work!! <grin>
Hell does not prevail against the Catholic Church. Retirement prevails against Protestant churches. QED.
In response to Mary M on Friday, Jan 14, 2011 8:40 PM (EST), who mentioned Ryan’s comment - “The Protestant Church does not have it quite right in the area of interpreting the Bible. You may be receiving bread and wine but what you are receiving is vastly different than what you receive as a Catholic.”
CC Response - There is only ONE Body of Christ. While I have been Roman Catholic for all my life, I have been at a few non-Catholic worship services, and the Communion is very reverent and Jesus IS there. “Wherever two or more are gathered IN MY NAME, I will be there.” He said.
MaryM continued with, “The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth and is so rich in history and tradition-”
CC Responds - the term “Fullness of the Truth”, I believe, came from JPII and folks have been using it relentlessly, ever since. Jesus IS the Truth. The God-breathed Word of God = the Bible, IS the Truth. So any Christian parish, Catholic or non-Catholic, that accepts the Word of God, and that confesses with their lips and believes in their hearts that Jesus is the Son of God - is in the Body of Christ.
Jesus’ prayer to the Father was for UNITY. Not division among Christians, all of us that live IN Him.
Benjamin Baxter on Friday, Jan 14, 2011 8:03 PM wrote to Ryan: “Funny you should mention celibacy ... when the discipline of priestly celibacy was last considered in 2006, it was the Eastern Rite priests who do have wives which warned very clearly about the problems that go along with loosing that discipline, and they’re part of why the discipline was not relaxed.”
CC Response: Benjamin, have you ever read what the IDEAL qualifications are in the Bible, for those in ordained ministry? They are found in Paul’s “Pastoral Letters” to Timothy and Titus. (1Tim. 3:1-5 and Titus Chapter 1) Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 9:5 that he had a “right to marry”.
Some with an UNhealthy view of sex and matters of the flesh, like a few church fathers from the 3rd century onward - 200 years after Pentecost!!,
carried their ungodly viewpoint with them from paganism into the Church.
Celibacy was fought successfully, up until the year 1139, when there was SO much corruption, mandatory celibacy was put into place, but it is only a practice that could change tomorrow, if Pope Benedict wanted to REALLY do something that would bring health to our church.
There are between 22-50% of clergy now (priests AND bishops) that have homosexual inclinations - they may or may not be sexually active. But it is NOT the qualififications outlined for us in the Bible. Our clergy should me MEN - MANLY MEN. I am a girly girl, and I often feel I have more testosterone in me than these males have in them. They are male, but not MEN.
Where’s the courage to speak out and BE Salt and Light in the World, individually - not in a big group, where they hand out a letter with an opinion, and after their high-powered ecclesiastical attorneys approve it first.
I’m with Ryan Allen on ALL he wrote - our church needs changes, and until then, it will dwindle in numbers (people are no longer agrarian, and illiterate, with a Pray, Pay and Obey attitude, cow-towing to men that are not credible.) Allow marriage for ALL priests, bishops and even popes.
St. Patrick was the grandson of a Roman Catholic priest, and the son of a deacon. If St. Peter wanted to enter a seminary today- he’d be refused. Peter was married, and no - he and his wife did not agree to not have sex, after Pentecost, and Peter did not abandon his family, like a dead-beat dad. Let’s put TRUTH in our church history and give the Bible qualifications a try, for the first time since 1139.
Posted by Benjamin Baxter on Friday, Jan 14, 2011 8:36 PM (EST):“It really comes down to one tough question: Which church survives because Christ founded it and which church survives because the pastor’s a cool, smart guy and the music is “relevant?”
CC Responds - There is only ONE Body of Christ - it is not the Roman Catholic church. There is an ‘invisible’ Body of Christ, and it is composed of ALL believers that confess with their lips and believe in their hearts that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.
It does involve being “born-again” - with a repentence that leads to a changed life. We turn from our own way of living, and follow Jesus.
When we are born only once (in the flesh), we die twice (physically and spiritually); when we are born twice (in the flesh and in the Spirit, here on earth) we die only once (physically). We live IN Him now (as in “I am the Vine, you are the branches..” we live IN Him, and forever.
Anyone in the Vine is in the Body of Christ - it is not a denomination.
As for Rome - it was Paul that wrote the letter to the Romans, Peter wasn’t there. And as for Rome being the church Jesus ‘founded’, the first Church that was organized was that in Jerusalem, where James (the “brother” of Jesus) was bishop.
Look up the Council of Jerusalem in Acts of the Apostles, and see how the REAL EARLY CHURCH and the REAL EARLY CHURCH FATHERS handled the dispute between Paul’s viewpoint and Peter’s and notice it was James that announced to the greater church what was the collective decision.
All that some of these posters who say they are Catholics but don’t seem to know the Faith need to do is read up in the Catechism about the differences between doctrine and discipline (celibacy is a discipline which can be changed), the sections on how our separated brethren *are* Christian, and how yes, Jesus is present where two or three are gathered, but transubstantiation renders a different kind of Presence. These ideas being expressed are not Catholic; they are Protestant. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater…you need it all to be fully in the Body of Christ.
In response to CC - “There is only ONE Body of Christ. While I have been Roman Catholic for all my life, I have been at a few non-Catholic worship services, and the Communion is very reverent and Jesus IS there. “Wherever two or more are gathered IN MY NAME, I will be there.”
CC - You are not understanding the Eucharist at all. Jesus being amidst the people when two or three are gathered is entirely different than when the priest convects the Eucharist. You do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus in the bread and in the wine at a Protestant service. Only a validly ordained priest can make Christ present in the Eucharist.
CC, we’ve had this conversation before - The Catholic Church is Scripture and Tradition and not just Scripture. The Catholic Church has the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ for grace. The Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ when he gave the keys of the Kingdom
to Peter. This is found in the Gospels.
Yes, all Christians are the body of Christ but not all Christian churches have the fullness of Christ’s teachings. Jesus established one church and that was always His intention. He never intended 35,000 different denominations in the U.S. alone.
I really don’t want to go down this same road again but you really do not know your Catholic faith if you can make statements like you have. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will give you an explanation of all the Catholic Church believes and teaches. These are not your opinions nor mine.
Yes, CC hasn’t understood the positions of the Catholic Church on any of the issues she mentions. Otherwise, she wouldn’t still be calling herself a Catholic. It would violate her conscience.
CC
YOU SAY: “There is only ONE Body of Christ. While I have been Roman
Catholic for all my life, I have been at a few non-Catholic worship
services, and the Communion is very reverent and Jesus IS there. ‘Wherever
two or more are gathered IN MY NAME, I will be there’, He said.”
COMMENT: Unless you have articulated your view badly, you have never been or have ceased to be the “Roman” Catholic. There are different ways of Jesus presence; one of them quoted by you, but that is not a substantial presence.
To quote Paul VI’s Encyclical Mysterium Fidei (35-39): “Christ is present in his Church (my note: the Protestant sects are not the Church, or are in a very defective way) in more than one way.”
He is present, at prayer: for it is he who is praying for us, is praying in us and is prayed to by us. He prays for us as our priest, in us as our head, he is prayed to by us as our God.” Then the Pope quotes what you quote, and then continues:
“He is present in his Church when she is engaged in works of mercy”, and then quotes Mt 25:40, referring to whatever good we do to the least of his brethren we do it to him, because it is Christ who is performing these works through the Church.
Furthermore, …”he is dwelling by faith in our hearts” and “pouring charity into them by the Holy Spirit”.
Furthermore, when the Church “is engaged in preaching…on his authority”,
And “when she rules and governs God’s people”. Her power comes from Christ, who “is with the bishops with the promise he made the apostles, as they exercise that power”.
Then when “she offers the sacrifice of the Mass in his name” and “when she is administering the sacraments”, including “the supreme form” (of presence) “in the Eucharist.”
AND NOW (46): the latter form “is called the ‘real’ presence, not…as tough the other forms of presence were not ‘real’, but by reason of if its excellence. It is the substantial presence by which” he is “present…whole and entire, God and man… and constitutes the greatest miracle of all in its kind…by a change of bread’s whole substance into his body and the wine’s whole substance into his blood”. “for beneath these appearances” ( i.e. of bread and wine, my note) “there in no longer what was there before but something quite different. THIS IS IN VERY FACT AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VALUATION PUT ON THEM BY THE CHURCH’S BELIEF. …NOTHING IS LEFT OF THE BREAD AND WINE BUT THE APPEARANCES ALONE”.
While the Protestants might accept A PART OF what is in 35-39, they can’t accept 46, nor do they have priests who have a power to effect it. In other words, they have a defective notion of the Eucharist: they believe that they receive the bread and the wine, and that is perfectly true.
There really is only “ONE Body of Christ”, as YOU SAY, but for not for the reason you think but: (1)all the consecrated “breads” and “wines” now, and throughout the history, constitute one “Loaf” of which St. Paul speaks, which unites all Christian Churches which have valid priesthood, and (2)those who partake of it, are incorporated into that “Loaf”, which unites them all with Him, with His One body, which is the Church. Not the “Church” of Protestant sects, but of the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Churches, which have valid priesthood and valid Eucharist.
YOU SAY: “So any Christian parish, Catholic or non-Catholic, that accepts the Word of God, and that confesses with their lips and believes in their hearts that Jesus is the Son of God - is in the Body of Christ.”
COMMENT: Yes, but in a defective way if he doesn’t believe all that the Catholic Church believes, and doesn’t share the worship and the government of the Catholic Church, because only the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ in a full sense.
YOU SAY: “The God-breathed Word of God = the Bible”.
COMMENT: One of the best jokes I have ever heard. Are you suggesting that the Bible is a faxmachine (“Moses”, Evangelists, St. Paul etc) printout sent (breathed, whispered) in Heaven by another faxmachine (God)? Something of that kind is believed by Christian fundamentalists, and – about Quran – by Moslems.
Donna wrote: “transubstantiation renders a different kind of Presence.”
CC responds:
The Presence is also in The Word we hear during the Mass readings. But Jesus is not separated and all over the place, in different forms. There is only ONE Jesus, ONE Body of Christ (the universal catholic Church= catholic, meaning ‘universal’), ONE Confession of belief and trust in Him.
A simple reading of the entire Bible and the Truths it contains makes this evident.
There is no confession and belief and trust in an institution - the Roman Catholic church. Our ‘membership’ in the Roman church, in and of itself, will not save us. It has no eternal value, unless we believe in our HEARTS that Christ is Who He said He was.
...and MaryM wrote: “You do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus in the bread and in the wine at a Protestant service. Only a validly ordained priest can make Christ present in the Eucharist.”
CC Responds:
You wrote about “validly ordained” clergy CAN MAKE Christ present in the Eucharist. - The priest does not MAKE God do anything - it is the assent of the entire congregation, priest (presider) included, that causes Christ to be present.
As for ‘validly ordained’ - This is a Catch 22, in that Fr. Cutie has been ‘validly ordained’ and he has taken his “POWERS” - for lack of better words, to MAKE CHRIST PRESENT, as you point out, for his Episcopal congregation.
There is also a bishop, ‘validly ordained’ and in union with Rome, at least outwardly, while INWARDLY, the man remains incognito, because he goes out onto the Danube River to “ORDAIN” women priests and even to “ORDAIN” women to serve as bishops.
Based on the ‘validly ordained’ process, with all the POWERS it enjoys, such as what you describe, it creates a scenario that makes this VALID, but illicit. It is valid because the “t’s” were crossed and the “i’s” were dotted, properly by Rome, but it is ILLICIT because what happened as a result of saying these men carry their powers for life, can and is being abused.
Christ (who in Revelation holds the Keys Himself) would never leave His family members in jeopardy, and at the mercy of mere men. When a priest or bishop is caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar, everyone agrees that the clergyman is “only human”.
MaryM also wrote: “I really don’t want to go down this same road again but you really do not know your Catholic faith if you can make statements like you have. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
CC Responds:
I know my Catholic faith very well and I have read the Catechism. When the Catechism interprets the Bible reasonably, congruently with Scripture, and there are NO OBVIOUS misinterpretations or DISTORTIONS on the obvious - then I accept it. When there are clearly obvious distortions, I reject it. I worship as a Roman Catholic - and I am a member of the catholic Church - the universal Body of Christ.
It’s SO EASY to speak with the other members of the Body of Christ - all 35,000 denominations, if there are that many. All that’s necessary is to read the Bible and to accept what’s written, in context.
It’s difficult ONLY in speaking with Roman Catholics that depend on Rome to be their sole teachers. This is why the Vatican needs to get cracking and TEACH TRUTH, even if it means saying, “The magesterium from the 2nd century through the twelfth century meant well - but they were wrong. We’ve been teaching you what they said, because we like tradition. But it’s time to go back to the way the Church was structured in the Bible.”
Just like the liturgy changes that will come in Advent 2011, it will be easy to spread the word world-wide, that our church will finally be brought to health, through changes that are God-honoring, and that respect His Word, taken in context.
...and Dan wrote: “Yes, CC hasn’t understood the positions of the Catholic Church on any of the issues she mentions. Otherwise, she wouldn’t still be calling herself a Catholic. It would violate her conscience.”
I understand the positions of the ROMAN Catholic Church, and I reject the ones that are extra-biblical and clearly opposed to Universal Church Tradition. My faith is very important to me, and I must obey GOD, not fallible MEN.
Most especially, I do not trust or follow MEN that blame psychologists for their actions, when they make poor decisions. Folks: our church is $2 billion in the hole due to payouts from priests that are sexually active. We just can’t afford to keep our heads in the sand anymore.
A jury in Delaware, just before Christmas instucted a PARISH to pay $3 million towards a $33 million judgement to a survivor, because the PARISH was negligent in turning a blind eye to their pastor abusing parishioners.
Are you willing to lose your own parish? I’m not. I follow clergymen, only when what they teach can square with Scripture and with universal Church Tradition.
When they push some new doctrines? No dice. My conscience is clear, by rejecting it.
Mihovil wrote to Cradle Catholic:
YOU SAY: “The God-breathed Word of God = the Bible”.
COMMENT: One of the best jokes I have ever heard.
Cradle Catholic’s reply:
The Holy Spirit inspired Word of God = the Bible, is not a joke. May I respectfully suggest, Mihovil, that you look up what the Roman Catholic Church teaches just about the Bible itself?
Cradle Catholic - You wrote -
and MaryM wrote: “You do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus in the bread and in the wine at a Protestant service. Only a validly ordained priest can make Christ present in the Eucharist.”
CC Responds:
You wrote about “validly ordained” clergy CAN MAKE Christ present in the Eucharist. - The priest does not MAKE God do anything - it is the assent of the entire congregation, priest (presider) included, that causes Christ to be present
CC - Why do continue to “debate” Catholic teachings? If you have read the Catechism as you say and you do not accept it in its totality then you are not Catholic in your heart and in your head. No one has the right to pick and choose from the Catechism what to accept or reject. I quote from the catechism - “The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate teaching the faith”. “Drawn up by the special Commission of Cardinals and Bishops the Catechism was approved and promulgated by me (Pope John Paul II)...and retains all its validity and timeliness, and finds its definitive achievement in this Latin typical edition.”
I am sure everyone on this blog would like to discuss issues but you are repeatedly rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches and substituting your own beliefs all the while saying you are a Catholic. The Catholic Church is not changing for you or for me and despite all that you say, You really do know the Catholic faith at all, and you have not accepted and assented to all that it teaches in your head and in your heart because if you did you would not be saying all the things you say.
Be who you want to be but stop telling us what you want the Catholic Church to be according to CC because somehow you know better. If you say that your conscience is clear then you do not have a correctly formed conscience.
A valid sacrament requires valid matter, form, and intent to do what the Church does. Therefore, when Father Cutie formally became Episcopalian, his attempted Eucarists are invalid, not just illicit, because Anglican orders were declared invalid a long time ago. Same with the women priests—women are invalid “matter”—hence, no ordinations occurred.
Yes the Bible is inspired by God but it’s part of Sacred Tradition. You can’t set the Catechism against Sacred Scripture. They’re one thing. St. Augustine said he wouldn’t believe the Holy Scriptures if the Holy Catholic Church didn’t declare them valid—someone can get me the exact quote. You can’t set one against the other—the Body against the Head, without being Protestant. I know many good Protestant Christians—my husband is one. But they don’t believe the full Gospel and it’s only by invincible ignorance that they will be saved. And God’s mercy is so vast we can’t grasp it.
Raising the pedophile priest issue is a straw man. So people are sinful. That’s why Christ died. If they repent, they will be saved. This has nothing to do with the validity of Holy Church. There will always be tares among the wheat, and it causes us great suffering. But it’s no surprise, and no excuse to leave the Church Christ founded.
DONNA
YOU SAY: “A valid sacrament requires valid matter, form, and intent to do what the Church does”.
COMMENT: yes, but the intention refers to both the minister and the recipient. The minister must have intention of doing what the Church does as you say (but what does it entail in details is rather complicated, and those who are interested may consider the book by late Father Leeming, Professor of dogma at Heytrop, London: The Principles of Sacramental Theology), and the recipient must have intention to receive the sacrament (say, an attempted baptism of an adult by force is invalid). Furthermore, the minister must have a power to administer the sacrament (say, layman cannot administer confirmation), and the recipient must be a suitable subject to receive the sacrament (say, a person who is healthy cannot receive the Sacrament of the Sick, a person who is not baptised cannot receive any sacrament except Baptism, two persons of the same sex cannot contract Matrimony, a woman cannot receive the Holy Orders).
YOU SAY: “Therefore, when Father Cutie formally became Episcopalian, his attempted Eucharists are invalid, not just illicit, because Anglican orders were declared invalid a long time ago.”
COMMENT: No. They (the Eucharists by Fr. Cutie) are valid, but illicit bexause the sacrament of the Holy Orders confers indelible character, and so, provided other conditions are fulfilled, the fact that Fr.Cutie has turned Anglican makes no difference: he is still, sacramentally, a Catholic pries.
YOU SAY: “Same with the women priests—women are invalid “matter”—hence, no ordinations occurred.”
COMMENT: No. The attempted ordination of women is invalid not because of the matter – the matter refers to the visible sign during the administration of the sacrament, not to the recipient – but because she is not a suitable subject for receiving Holy Orders (see above).
YOU SAY: (about good Protestants): “But they don’t believe the full Gospel and it’s only by invincible ignorance that they will be saved.”
COMMENT: No. They can only be saved IN SO FAR as they are good, and IN SO FAR as they are materially, albeit defectively, Catholic; i.e. IN SO FAR as they believe Gospel. The invincible ignorance is not a sacrament of salvation but the reason why God will forgive those who materially sin in ignorance, who are not fully Catholic, who do not believe in a full Gospel.
CC
YOU SAY: “The Holy Spirit inspired Word of God = the Bible, is not a joke. May I respectfully suggest, Mihovil, that you look up what the Roman Catholic Church teaches just about the Bible itself?” And earlier: “Jesus is the Son of God”
COMMENT: Come on, CC, let’s not bring this Blog to disrepute by making laugh the secularists or Moslems who might come across with it and, perhaps, have stamina to read. We must know the meaning of the words we use.
The Bible is not a “word” but a collection of books and other writings. In any case, the word can only be spoken or written and the “word of God” implies that He has a mouth and/or hand. Even He is not so almighty to be able to produce a word without speaking or writing, which, by definition, can only be done with mouth or hand, and He has none of it. Are you suggesting that He has?
What the Moslems can but laugh when they hear the claim that “Jesus is the Son of God”, which implies that God has a spouse, not to mention the rest.
Everybody knows that the Holy Spirit is God. And according to you He inspired the Word of God, i.e. He inspired His own word. And then what the word “inspired” is supposed to mean? Dictating? If so, how? Whispering by a pigeon? Or earlier, you used the phrase “God-breathed”. Are you suggesting that God has lungs?
If you have any coherent notion of how the Bible has come to be and has reached us, by all means, tell us.
To all appearances you think, as I said before, that it is analogous to a printout of a fax-machine, where he latter stands the human authors of the Bible, which machine received a cable message from a heavenly fax-machine into which the Holy Spirit made His input. And in that sense the Bible is supposed to be the “Word of God”. If I am wrong, tell me the difference.
To change the subject, there is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church (understood as a communion of those who, to put is simply, share their faith with the Pope and the bishops who are united with him; it is necessary to make this clarification because the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of that communion, but resent the term “Roman”, not because of the pope but because they have their own Canon Law and Liturgy, which are not Roman but go back to the time before their mother churches have separated themselves from the pope). This matter is so fundamental that your opinion that there is a difference shows that your faith, and the faith of those who have embarked on exchange with you, are not superficially different but fundamentally. All that you have in common is the word “Catholic”, but the meaning of it differs, essentially differs. So, the whole debate misses the point, because they believe that you use the word “Catholic” in the same sense as they do, and are trying to persuade you that, here or there, you do not know what the Catholic Church as they conceive it, believes. And you, on the other hand, neither know nor are interested to learn what the Catholic Church as conceived by them, believes; but you are trying, instead, to persuade them that what you believe to be the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in which they should believe but don’t because they are not enlightened as you are.
OK, I’m not commenting on any of Mihovil’s responses to CC because it’s not my conversation and frankly I got totally lost and don’t have time or interest to study all that. But as to his responses to ME, I’m afraid I disagree with you on every count, and I’d like to see documentation from an expert in canon law, frankly, to sort out which of us is correct. Once the Eucharist is confected validly, it’s Jesus, and I don’t care who receives it improperly, they are still receiving JESUS. Transubstantiation either occurs or it doesn’t. Once it does, Jesus doesn’t just go away because of the disposition of the recipient. We can receive fewer graces, or can receive illicitly, but we still receive Jesus. About Holy Orders, what about all those Anglican priests back in the day who had hands laid upon them by those in Apostolic succession, but the Pope declared their orders invalid because of defects in Anglican rite of ordination, including denial of transubstantiation? When Father Cutie took these orders, doesn’t he fall under that category? I’m willing to be corrected on this.
And I NEVER SAID invincible ignorance is a sacrament! I think we both are in agreement—we’re just using different words. Of course Protestants can be saved.
And women are not suitable subject for receiving Holy Orders because they are invalid “matter.” Valid matter is a baptized male.
Anyone can comment on anything in a blog - there are no private
conversations. It’s healthy to dialog. The more, the better.
DONNA:
YOU SAY: “I’d like to see documentation from an expert in canon law, frankly, to sort out which of us is correct.”
COMMENT: It has nothing directly to do with the Canon Law: the subject comes under the Sacramental Theology, which is part of the Dogmatic Theology, or what will be now called: Systematic Theology. And documentation is in Father Leeming’s book, now out of print but can be obtained second hand. But one can also find it, implicitly at least, in the Catechism.
YOU SAY: “Once the Eucharist is confected validly, it’s Jesus, and I don’t care who receives it improperly, they are still receiving JESUS.”
COMMENT: Yes, but, materially, it is a sacrilege, and unless one is invincibly ignorant it is a mortal sin. One does receive Jesus, but offends Him at the same time.
YOU SAY: “When Father Cutie took these (Anglican, my note) orders, doesn’t he fall under that category?”
COMMENT: Of course he does, but a validly ordained person, as it is the case with Father Cutie who is ordained in the Catholic Church, is priest for ever, because his priestly character is indelible. I tried to explain it already. It is the same thing as if a person receives baptism, which too confers the character. He too, is the baptized person for ever, and if he joins a community in which the baptism is invalid, even if he receives it, doesn’t affect the baptism he had validly received while in the Church, because he doesn’t loose it by leaving the Church.
YOU SAY: “And I NEVER SAID invincible ignorance is a sacrament! “
COMMENT: Of course, but the saying: “by invincible ignorance that they will be saved”, implies that. It is fundamental for the Vatican II doctrine on Ecumenism, that those who are separated from the Church, are not separated fully, in other words, IN SO FAR as they still share the Catholic Faith they still belong to the Catholic Church, albeit defectively, i.e. they are in a real but incomplete communion. Now, because there is no salvation outside the Church, and they still can be saved, the only reason for this “exemption” is the fact that, IN SO FAR as they still share the Catholic Faith, they still belong to the Catholic Church, i.e. they are not “outside”.
By the way, one of the main reasons why the SSPX “rejects” the Vatican II doctrine on ecumenism is exactly the fact that they do not understand that the separated Christian bodies can still be used by the Holy Spirit as a means of salvation, not in so far as they are separated, but IN SO FAR as they are still in the original communion with the Church in so far as that communion has never been lost.
YOU SAY: “Valid matter is a baptized male.”
COMMENT: No, the baptized male is a suitable subject, as I have tried to explain. The “matter” is not about recipients, but about sacramental sign, which consists of the matter, i.e. the laying on of hands or whatever, and the form, i.e. the words which the minister has to use.
Hi CC—you misunderstood—I was just saying that I wanted to respond to the part of Mihovil’s comments that referred to me, not to those he was addressing to you; I wasn’t saying dialog was bad or anything like that.
And Mihovil!
OK—I thought the laying on of hands was part of the form. Like I said, I wasn’t sure about the validity or not of Father Cutie’s Anglican orders—I was just wondering. Thanks for clarifying that.
But in everything else you said, despite all your words, we don’t disagree on anything! Canon Law, sacramental theology—whatever—the meaning of what I was asking was for clarification, from whatever authoritative source. And about Holy Communion—for heaven’s sake—of course it would be a sacrilege to receive Him illicitly or unworthily…but that wasn’t what I heard you saying. It sounded like you were saying there was invalidity, and that’s what I was addressing. The intention for validity—I didn’t think that referred to the state of the recipient….I thought that just affected the graces you receive, or licitness, not the validity of the transubstantiated elements themselves.
I understand now how Christians over the centuries can be so divided over absolutely nothing because of talking past each other. Good grief!
DONNA: Just to clarify an important point, or important in so far as I see it; because it might be of interest to others, if not to you.
YOU SAY: “The intention for validity—I didn’t think that referred to the state of the recipient”….I thought that just affected the graces you receive, or licitness, not the validity of the transubstantiated elements themselves.”
COMMENT: The required intention of the recipient does not refer to the “state” of recipient, but to his willingness to receive the sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be imposed on anyone (except the baptism on babies where intention is “taken over” by the parents): we are free in that respect, as we are free to be or not to be Catholics. The “state”, i.e. disposition, is relevant for receiving, not the sacrament, but the grace specific for the sacrament concerned. Once the sacrament is received, i.e. received validly, the grace does not follow necessarily: if an adult does not receive the baptism in repentant disposition, it will not affect the validity, but nevertheless his sins will not be forgiven: the forgiveness is, so to say, “suspended”. If however, he repents later FOR THE SINS HE HAS COMMITTED BEFORE, the suspension will be “lifted”, and the sins forgiven without confession.
This all applies to the sacraments other than the Eucharist, which differs from others in that it is effected (transubstantiation) before reception (communion), i.e. in the meantime the Eucharist is on the altar or in the tabernacle (real presence), while other sacraments are effected and received simultaneously. But I better not confuse a reader, unless asked.
YOU SAY: “I understand now how Christians over the centuries can be so divided over absolutely nothing because of talking past each other. Good grief! “
COMMENT: Indeed. And much can be done to mend the past by a constructive dialogue, in which parties try to identify real issues underlying the linguistic expressions used to articulate them, instead of arguing about the words used to articulate these issues. It is now generally maintained that the Christological doctrine which was debated at the councils of Ephesus and Calcedon, ending with Nestorian (now Assyrian Church) and Monophysite (now Syrian Jacobite, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopian Churches) schisms from what are now Catholic and Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc) Churches, was more due to misunderstanding than to real disagreements, but the long time of de facto separation makes now the restoration of unity very difficult
Hi Mihovil,
Very interesting information about how graces are received in baptism—that helps explain how someone who seems to not live a Christian life and yet is baptized can seem to exhibit little grace in their daily life. It also explains why non-Catholic Christians like myself had to go to Confession before being received into the Church—I don’t know the right language, but I suppose the repentance in the sacrament of Confession would have “activated” the graces of my baptism.
I am really praying that the division between the Orthodox and Catholics can be overcome soon..won’t that be a glorious day?
Thank you for your patient dialog.
God bless,
Donna
Jimmy,
I have two pet peeves:
One day our pastor told people to substitute the word “God’s” for “his” in two places. The one I can remember is “for the praise and glory of his name”. That pastor is long since gone, but half the church says “God’s” and the other half says “his”. I’m sure it was intended as an homage to the gender neutrality folks in the parish, but now it’s just a glaring reminder of division and sloppiness. The current pastor hasn’t changed it back in the past 6 yrs. I’m hoping the new Mass translation will set it straight.
My second pet peeve is the new rule that we now have to stand after communion. I know this is to encourage singing the communion hymn, but it comes at the expense of some real quality time right after the reception of Jesus. My wife and I sit in the back, so we’ve already sang most of the communion verses and it’s easier to justify kneeling after communion. I just wish they wouldn’t change the things that actually do make sense, like kneeling after communion.
Jeff - I know you wrote to Jimmy- please allow me to chime in? Why don’t you and your wife just refuse to play the game of Liturgical Simon Says?
There are parishes in my area that also say “God’s” and not “His”. I asked the music director why that was. He said it was to make God gender nuetral. I told him God revealed Himself to us as “Father”, as Jesus, Word made Flesh, and it’s ALL OVER THE BIBLE that “His” is used for God. Women know they are part of MANkind. But we are not men. It’s all just silly - and very dangerous, because they are re-defining God.
So when everyone else says and SINGS “God” - as loud as I can, I sing “HIS”. It’s very obvious. Refuse to play Simon Says. Every chance I get, I also tell children to watch for those little changes that redefine God. It’s good for the next generation to be more aware, and less “tolerant” of the game-playing that comes down the Vatican pike.
As for kneeling/standing: Again, it’s Simon Says. We’re there to reverence God, to worship Him, and no one (not even the Vatican) can LEGISLATE how we worship. It’s a heart thing.
I only go along with the flow, when it seems appropriate. At one parish, they took out the kneelers. I’ve only been going to that parish for 6 months (as well as one I’ve been going to for 10 years).
At Thanksgiving, one visiting family just knelt down on the carpeted floor. Two other people saw them, and since then, more and more people (myself included) have been kneeling at the Consecration, right down on the carpeted floor. Perhaps the new pastor will bring back some kneelers.
Even one of the music ministers just goes down on his knees for the Consecration. I followed his lead.
Well, Jeff and Cradle Catholic, the Vatican DOES legislate how we worship. It’s apparent that you’ve not been catechized completely on Communion. You see, WE receive Communion. “I” don’t receive Communion, but “we”, those of us gathered to praise God’s name, receive Communion. Communion is the culmination of the Mass. It’s why the Vatican has legislated that one should - except in emergency or dire need - receive a host consecrated at THAT Mass. Honestly, I gotta ask: is Communion important enough to us that we’re willing to share the experience with our fellow Catholics who are gathered with us for that very same thing?
If you were told only that standing after Communion is to encourage you to sing the song, you’re not completely informed, and perhaps you should take your pastor to task for that. Communion is a procession, and Catholics traditionally stand for a procession, even when not actively moving. “We” process to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus, and “we” offer our communal thanks and praise. Check the GIRM. Then, after all have received, the Vatican has legislated that we be allowed time to offer our personal and private thanksgiving. If you don’t get that time, it’s not the fault of the current missal, it’s the fault of those who have decided to schedule Masses too close together. If your parish has Masses every 90 minutes on a Sunday morning, that’s part of why you don’t have time for your personal prayer at Mass.
God is “he” in Christian religions, but have respect for those of other faiths who see God in the feminine. I’ve heard (unsubstantiated) that there is not neutral pronoun (like “it”) in Hebrew. Given that most of our lives we’ve known male dominated cultures, this may explain our tendency to automatically refer to God and other authority figures in the masculine. Again, I’m not sure about this, but I’ve heard the conversation. As a musician, I’m not comfortable changing someone else’s words, including pronouns. I may not be a majority, though.
Standing after Communion is incorrect. In the United States the GIRM calls for us to kneel or to sit during Communion. The gender neutral stuff is an abomination thanks to the radical feminists. Jesus revealed God to us as Father. While God is spirit and does not possess a body we rely on how Jesus told us to pray. He said you are to pray “Our Father.
Mary M, can you help me find where you find your information about standing being incorrect? In Chap. II of the GIRM, joining our voices together is mentioned, but there is nothing about posture in that area. In Chap. III, under “Duties of the People of God”, we are instructed to “shun any appearance of individualism or division”, but still no instruction on posture. Communion is over when we all are done receiving, not when I receive. So we stand - process, really - to receive Communion, and sit or kneel when we ALL have received. It’s the common posture of the procession.
Let’s not forget that part of the intent of Vatican II was to get priests to follow instructions from the Council of Trent.
Rick - If standing is not indicated in the GIRM we are to understand that it is not permitted. No has the right to ADD or to change anything in the instructions. The priests are to follow and obey the directives in the GIRM. No one, not even the priest has a right to change it in any way either by adding to it or removing anything from it. If any parish is not following the instructions in the GIRM then the priests are not following instructions. All parishes in the United States are to be in uniformity. One example of individualism that is prevalent in most parishes today (and with no instruction in the GIRM to do so) is to hold hands during the Our Father. The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father; it is not a prayer that we recite to “unite” us. What unites us is when we receive Eucharist as community.
CC - The Vatican has every right, and it does legislate what takes place at Mass which is why we have the GIRM. Once again, we are to shun individualism. Mass is not about the “I”; it is about the “we”. We worship as a community of believers.
ONLY Peeve:
RECEIVING THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN THE HAND! We are recieving the Body of Christ our Lord. It should never be recieved in the hand. I challenge anyone to find an example of any Saint recieving the Eucharist in any way besides kneeling and on the tongue.
Holding hands during the Our Father! When did this become compulsory? If the wonderful Charismatics want to hug on each other great. Please, don’t make all of us do it. Also, while we’re at it can we dump King Henry VIII’s embellishment of the Lord’s Prayer. The words “for the kingdom, the power and glory are yours”, aren’t the Lord’s version.
Paul K - Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy.
I am paraphrasing here but I remember Fr. Corapi telling a story about the angst he felt with people receiving in the hand and he “heard” Jesus telling him that what comes out of one’s mouth is far dirtier than the hand.
jerryd - The Doxology…..“For the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory…..” was used long before before the Protestant Reformation.
Paul K, there is no evidence that the apostles knelt to receive Communion at the Last Supper. I would challenge you to find proof that they did. Kneeling to receive happened quite some time (possibly hundreds of years, but my resources are in my office and I’m not) after Jesus ascended.
I would also like to see the Scripture that the Lord’s Prayer used in Mass (and rosaries and everywhere else) comes from.
quote from Rick Reed:
“Paul K, there is no evidence that the apostles knelt to receive Communion at the Last Supper. I would challenge you to find proof that they did. Kneeling to receive happened quite some time (possibly hundreds of years, but my resources are in my office and I’m not) after Jesus ascended.”
I just have to say, “So….you were there?”
There’s no evidence they didn’t kneel either. People in the Bible knelt all the time in the presence of God. Maybe they did kneel at the Last Supper. Maybe they received on the tongue—maybe they didn’t. We don’t know either way. Pet Peeve Alert! Kneeling is a sign of reverence, and no one should be bullied into not doing it. About all the “we” and “community” stuff. Yes, we help each other get to heaven. I love the idea of the communion of saints, living and dead, all praying for the souls of the faithful departed, and those still on this earth. But I repent individually. I confess individually. And I will face my Lord at my judgment individually. I’m just so tired of all the we are church, Cindy-Lou-Who forced friendliness. It’s given me anxiety attacks I never used to have. I used to love going to Mass. Now I do it out of obedience.
In the immortal words of Linus Van Pelt: I love mankind. It’s people I can’t stand.
I simply respond the way they do at the Vatican.
Kyrie eleison.
To Rick Reed: Hand Communion started in Holland in 1965/1966 as a result of some laity questioning whether Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist. Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei rejected hand Communion as an “already false opinion.” He then asked the Dutch Bishops to write to their priests and “to give them directives to once again return to the traditional way of receiving Holy Communion”. Three years later in his encyclical Human Vitae. These instructions were not passed on by the Dutch Bishops to their priests yet they remained unpunished and uncensored. In 1969 the increasing number of Bishops who pushed for Communion in the hand requested of Pope Paul VI to give special permission for hand Communion in order to “sanction the disobedience”. And Later in 1969 he gave certain Bishops’ Conferences, where receiving Communion in hand had taken hold out of disobedience “Special permission”. Then this “special permission” was only granted to “certain communities and certain towns”, and most certainly not in all Dioceses and also not “as a custom”, and therefore its illegal inception as well as it’s spreading throughout so many countries is misleading, invalid, erroneous, and wrong. Again in 1969 Pope Paul VI turned to the whole church wherin he warned seriously (vehementer hortatur) of the dangers of Communion in hand and advised “for the good of the church itself” that all Bishops, Priests, and Laity once again conform with the again confirmed manner of Holy Communion on the tongue. In 1975 Pope Paul’s liturgical expert and advisor on this issue Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the very author of Liturgical Reform was dismissed by the Pope when Bugnini’s masonic affiliation was exposed. It was reported that a few hours before his death, Pope Paul VI, when Holy Communion was brought to his room, got out of his sick bed and dropped onto his knees to recieve Jesus.
Also the Sisters of Charity (the order Mother Theresa started) allow only communion on the tongue. It is also reported that when a group of Bishops while visiting Mother Theresa asked her what, in her opinion, the worst evil in the crisis of the church was, she answered “modern form of receiving Communion.”
Also, Theresa Neuman lived only on Consecrated Host for some 35 years and also saw Jesus distribute the bread into the mouth of the Apostles.
Also, Katharina Emmerich another great German Mystic was also aloud to see the Last Supper, and she also saw Jesus distribute the Consecrated Hosts into the mouths of the Apostles.
Refenece: Maria Simma speaks with Nicky Eltz “Get Us Out of Here!!” I strongly recommend this book!!!
As for your question on the Holy Rosary: The Rosary originated about the year 1208 during the period when St. Dominic was preaching against the Albigensian heresy in southern France. Dominic had preached for years to members of this sect without much success. One night, while praying in the chapel of Notre Dame at Prouille, Our Lady appeared to him holding a Rosary in her hand. According to tradition, she taught him how to say it and instructed him to teach it to the world, promising that it would ccnvert sinners and obtain graces for the just. Immediately therafter, armed with this weapon, St. Dominic’s preaching among the Albigenses began to show effect and many of them returned to the faith. In the military crusade carried out by Simon de Montfort, the Rosary again triumphed. The Christian army, instructed by St. Dominic, recited the Rosary befroe the crucial battle of Muret in 1213, and De Montfort ascribed his victory, under God, to those prayers.
Refernce: Holy Bible, New American Bible, published by Fireside Catholic Publishing. This is an excerpt at the end, also has some great art, and other Marion prayers. Also at the front has pages for genealogy. Excellent Family Bible and nice sized print for reading!
This is just a little history of where the Holy Rosary came from. Not to mention the many, many, Marion apparitions that have occured to those whom pray the Rosary often. Examples of Fatima, Garabandal, Medjugore, as well as the many Marion apparitions to the Saints.
I hope this helps in explaining where some of this comes from. If I can be of any more assistance please let me know.
Paul K - With all due respect - Garabandal and Medjugorje are not approved apparitions.
Thank you, Paul, for providing information about the start of this malicious practice (I do not mean, of course, that the ill informed people who receive on the hand, and defend the pracice, are malicious) of the communion in the hand in Holland. The reason, however, was not the “laity questioning whether Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist” but theologians as it is evident from the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei 1965 (google “Mysterium Fidei encyclical” and select the section that deals with Papal Encyclical Online, read the tenth paragraph or so, starting with “However”; the London CTS rendering starting with No. 9). I can’t find the phrase “already false opinion”, but it is not relevant. The Pope has deplored both the silence about Transubstantiation and its replacement with “trans-finalization” or “trans-signification”, spread by Western theologians in the same period in which the Dutch Catechism was published under the heading “New Catechism – Catholic faith for adults” in which too the dogma was undermined. The Pope set up a commission to investigate it, and its report with the request for amendments related to various doctrinal issues, including Eucharist (Ch.VI), run on 50 pages. The Imprimatur was supposed to be refused to all editions which did not append that report; however, I had in my hand an American edition with Imprimatur, but without it, which was used in England for – Catechesis.
I know of individuals who insisted on communion in the hand, as well as heard a priest literally inciting people to do so, although it was not permitted at that time. It was part of an orchestrated brainwashing, in the course of which the London CTS did not publish the Pope’s document Memoriale Domini (google the title, and read carefully – it is not long but revealing). This brainwashing included lies: for example it was said that the Orthodox Church too practised it, and all that nonsense about human dignity etc.
Memoriale Domini provided concession in those places where the practice had already been established, no provision was made for violation in the future. De facto, however, it was being granted later too, because the policy of the pressure groups was to bring about a fait accompli situation.
So, I take the line of refusing communion in the hand even if the price is not to receive it (except in an emergency): after all, we are not bound to receive it on every possible occasion, and sometimes it is better to take stock, make an act of contrition, and prepare better for next occasion. It is sign of unity, and it is, at least sometimes, better not to make a false sign by being “united” with the hand communicants.
It was the practice in primitive Church and abandoned because “with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it” (Memoriale Domini). So far as I have managed to see in London, it is regular practice only in the Nestorian (Assyrian) Church, which separated from the main body of Christians after the Council of Ephesus A.D. 431, and continued to live isolated from the rest of Christianity.
DONNA, our Orthodox contributor to this Post, might wish to tell us of her experience. The restoration of unity between us and the Holy Orthodox Church, is according to the words of ex-Ratzinger (Principles of CatholicTheology, Ignatius Press, 1987, p. 199) “from theological perspective…fundamentally possible but the spiritual preparation…not yet ready in practice”. Let’s get rid of this ugly practice, and others, like licking chalice, shaking or holding hands, lay ministers, women altar serves, clapping, disco music etc. – all not requested by us but imposed on us by the abusers of the Law of the Church - and come closer to the magnificent Byzantine Liturgy, which is also celebrated by our Catholic brethren of the Ukrainian Church.
Hi—I’m actually not Orthodox, but Latin rite Catholic; perhaps you were thinking of another Donna? Or it could be because I said “non-Catholic Christian” but I was actually talking about my (Protestant) state before I became Catholic in 2003. Sorry for the confusion. I’m strangely honored, however! I considered the Orthodox church in my faith journey; there’s an Orthodox church in my town and I have friends who are members, but I concluded that Peter is the Rock so I needed to be Catholic. I have attended a Byzantine Catholic liturgy and it’s so beautiful; they give Communion by intinction with a spoon, and great care is taken by putting a cloth under the mouth of the Communicant. We need to return to this respect for Christ in the Eucharist; even one time when I received on the tongue and the minister sort of missed and hit the side of my mouth; when I returned to my pew and knelt, a piece fell on the floor (I consumed it)—fewer problems like this at an altar rail with a cloth on the altar. And moving in procession makes it hard to administer COTT.
Mihovil, in most or all dioceses, it’s not allowed to refuse to give a person Communion on the tongue. It’s the least sanitary way, but it is licit. Similarly, one cannot be refused Communion in the hand either. In many dioceses, intinction is not allowed. Some do allow it, but it varies from diocese to diocese.
Donna, where have you experienced Communion at an altar rail with a cloth on the altar, being new in the Church? A well-trained Minister of Communion (Ordinary or Extraordinary) can and will take their time and give you the host and chalice so as to not “miss”. The Communion Procession should not be rushed, nor should it take an extraordinary amount of time, either. Having sufficient Ministers of Communion (Ordinary and Extraordinary) will allow this.
Hi Rick—the ministers of the cup do really well. But getting the host right on the tongue must be an art, and I probably contribute by not doing it well, either. I am getting better, though! Our deacon-in-training is one who mentioned it to the RCIA class (not my class—one I was helping with) as an option (kudos for that) but he did talk about how difficult it is to administer if people don’t open up and stick out their tongues. And he kind of made little jokes. So receiving from him, I was self-conscious, and he was also nervous (I was nervous about his nervousness, if you know what I mean!). We have sufficient ministers of Communion, ordinary and extra-ordinary, so I think the rushing was my fault: being aware of receiving “differently”, I felt awkward. The altar cloth was just something I had heard or read about, and after my sort of strange and unique “crumb on corner of mouth” experience, reflected that it was a good idea and very practical and efficient, considering that each visible crumb is the Lord. And very similar to the Eastern Catholic method of holding the cloth under the person’s chin; I just thought it was cool that people had thought through all these eventualities and were doing everything to take care of our Lord. (A paten probably wouldn’t have prevented what happened to me unless the minister noticed the crumb and stopped me; sort of unlikely, maybe.) Anyway—I’m going to try not to feel so rushed and just take my time and not worry about “what do other people think about me and how I’m receiving, etc., etc.
Rick Reed
I do not dispute that the communion in the hand is now lawful. But it is a legalised abuse, pushed by pressure groups of those who do not believe in Real Presence. I do not mean that those who actually now take communion in the hand deny Real Presence (although a scientific research might well statistically demonstrate significant relation between the two), but they do give example of an undesirable practice.
Both JP II and B VI have shown with their gestures and practice at public masses that they want it abandoned, but any further action of theirs would have been and would be in vain because they would not be obeyed – so good Catholics we are.
The early Christian practice was abandoned exactly because the increased understanding of what is the Eucharist naturally demanded the abandonment. Of all present Christian Churches (I mean the Churches with valid priesthood and Eucharist) only the most primitive one, the Nestorian Church which separated in the 4th cent. from the rest of Christianity and did not follow its development, has retained it.
Only the Catholic Church returned to it, which thus creates an obstacle to reunion of Christians. Pius XII in his Encyclical on liturgy, Mediator Dei, has deplored what he called Archaeologism, i.e. return to ancient practices merely because they are ancient, because the liturgy is developing as an expression of Faith under the guidance of the Holy Ghost alongside the doctrine. Lex orandi – lex credendi, i.e. Law of prayer – Law of faith, means that the two go side by side together: what we pray reflects what we believe and vv. Change of one affects another.
It is beyond dispute that it incites irreverence. It takes much self-denial to believe that Christ is present, body and soul, humanity and divinity, whole and entire in each particle of the “host” so long as the particle is recognizable as such, and the reception in the hand involves an unnecessary double handling and increases the possibility of accident, not to mention scandals that occasionally happen by deliberate mishandling, necessity, on occasion, that a runs after somebody who takes the “host” away etc. All that, even if one leaves out of consideration the worst examples, cannot possibly straighten the Faith in Real Presence, can it? And, by the way, it makes liturgical nonsense of the rubric that require of a priest to wash his hands.
It is now, thank God, easy to access documents of the Magisterium. One of the moral obligations of every Catholic is to know his Faith, particularly now when it is attacked both from outside and inside. And documents of the Magisterium are the safest resource. A lot of misleading, false, and even malicious staff is present in many quasi Catholic publications. The two documents that are most relevant for the present debate, and not difficult to understand: Mysterium Fidei (on Real Presence) and Memoriale Domini (on Communion in the hand), are in plain English, and far better time spent than blog comments. Why not open the pages and read? I have deliberatelly skipped details that are there, because it is better to read documents than what I claim that it is there.
Actually none of the liturgical mess that is VatII affects me in any way anymore. I’ve gone over to the FSSP chapel and I have no intention of looking or going back. So these Bishops can play with the words, add singing, dancing, and a tap show if they like. I’m done with it, it took 39 years of my life to be done with it but I made it. I finally discovered everything (thank you Holy Spirit!) that the hero and saint Marcel Lefebvre did for us by preserving the mass. One man with the courage to stand up and say NON! And the result is we have the true mass still today and accessible on Sunday to just about everyone who wants to make a bit of effort to get there. Deo Gratias!
Pet Peeves: people talking and laughing in church before Mass, sad to say some of the worst offenders are seniors. Parents not using the crying room, people not turning their cell phones off, one senior lady took pictures during the consecration on her cell phone, children acting up as they sit in the front row, long lines of kids dominating the priest in the nave to sign their religious ed books so you can’t even shake the priest’s hand or mention the homily, saving seats in the pew, being asked to move, people beating the priest out the door after Mass, cliquishness of some ministries, people coming in late all during the Mass, women cleaning out their purses in church, homilies that get political, some organ music unless it’s Easter or Christmas.
My pet peeve is making the Mass all about us, and not focusing on its purpose, which is to gather the assembly of believers, to worship God.
Is He pleased and is He present on the altar, and in the hearts of the Communion of Saints?
Do we know more about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit when we leave Mass, more than when we arrived? Have we helped our fellow Christians to know God more, and to help them through whatever crisis is in their life? That’s what has eternal value.
wow - do the shear number of these comments give us any idea of how the highest prayer of the Church has been hijacked in favor of syrupy, free-wheeling theatrics for DECADES?? I thank God and the grace of the Holy Spirit for guiding Pope Benedict in “housecleaning” - it will take a while…
Dom Alcuin Reid, OSP, reports that a Professor of Liturgy, when he, Dom Reid, offered to him for assessment his paper on liturgy, with a reference to a Cardinal Ratzinger’s book on liturgy, the Professor did not welcome it, saying that Ratzinger “was not a liturgist”, and that “we should not use him as an authority”. Dom Alcuin comments, that “that is one very good reason why one ought to turn to him on matters liturgical, for as Father Aidan Nichols, OP so aptly put:
‘Liturgy is too important to be left to liturgists’ “.
(Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault liturgical conference: Looking Again at the Question of Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger, p.9, ed. by Father Reid)
Regrettably, that is exactly what the Pope Paul VI did, and we ended with millions squandered for vandalization of altars, buildings “as ugly as sin” as an architect, the author of the book with this title so aptly remarks; disposal of valuable pieces of art, dust-bining Missals, endless discussions, many complaints from Rome against “abuses” etc.
I don’t think that the Holy Father wanted it, but he has put much more trust in the modern liturgists than they deserve. (In point of fact, Ratzinger has published several books on liturgy, notably The Spirit of the Liturgy, which he considers to be his most mature work. The beginning is a bit heavy reading but the rest is easier and – revealing.)
I wish to point out that the GIRM is quite specific and that Canon Law also makes it very clear:
“Canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law states :The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them
Number 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states:
Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Therefore, no one may change any approved and confirmed liturgical text. This includes, but is not limited to the “Lectionary for Mass” and the “Sacramentary.”
Frederick, the legislation is ok, but it is a dead letter, as we all know.
The Pope can’t do it alone. Many of the practices which were initially an abuse, like communion in the hand, under both kinds, lay ministers, women altar servers…to mention the most obvious, were later legalized because the Pope was not obeyed. One who is interested in details can consult the Redemptoris Sacramentum.
The now prevailing use of a vernacular is a reverse of what Vatican II proposed. Nowhere in the legislation was a clear request that the old altars should be demolished, and that the Mass should be offered facing people.
Another question is: was the whole reform, although lawful, nevertheless a failure? One should read Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press. The reform was the main cause of the SSPX’s schism, it has widened the gap that exists between the Catholic, and all separated Eastern Churches. We continually hear about the “benefits” but never what these benefits are all about.
It isn’t OK to deviate from the wording in the Lectionary.
Canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law states :The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them
Number 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states:
Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Therefore, no one may change any approved and confirmed liturgical text. This includes, but is not limited to the “Lectionary for Mass” and the “Sacramentary.”
Email us at bcl@usccb.org
Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
fiscal36
Ah Fred, you’re going to upset MANY priests, even many who are otherwise faithful to the instructions (GIRM). Far too many change the wedding and funeral liturgies. How many times have you seen the bride and groom enter together in procession? It’s in the Rite of Marriage. How often have you witnessed eulogies at funerals? They belong at the wake liturgy, not the funeral. How many times have you sat through a Communion Meditation song, at a wedding, funeral, or Sunday Mass? There is no such animal in the GIRM - the song after Communion (if done) is to be a song of praise sung by the assembly, with restrictions on the subject matter. Bad news for some - Ave Maria really doesn’t fit the bill here.
The current Missal has some great beauty that’s been overlooked for a number of reasons, and too many blame other problems in the liturgy on the current Missal, which is misplaced. The new Missal will be in English (sort of), but not vernacular. And that’s against another rule of the Church.
Follow, lead or get out of the way.
If there are bad rules we must follow them or try to change them.
I can remember hymns and prayers I learned before “Poping” - but the RC liturgy is unmemorable, and the messing-around does not help. A liturgy that can be sung, is a liturgy that will stick in the memory - as anyone who has listened to Handel will know. A liturgy cannot be sung, that is composed by those with no feel for language, however accurate or orthodox it may otherwise be. Not for nothing did the Reformation spread through hymns as well as by argument in prose. When Catholics have a liturgy they can sing, and hymns they can sing, maybe they will begin to be orthodox. Not otherwise.
Is it important to realize that God is all powerful and that our worship of Him does not add to Him, but helps us (broken and wounded as we are) to be formed in the meek and humble sense of being made aware and attentive to God? And all that He is and how incredibly unworthy we are, but still recieving the graces the Lord has prepared for us in the way He has willed it come about?
May all be blessed in the coming Advent as the new translation goes into effect!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.