Lay People With Pectoral Cross? Annoying?

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

That depends. When I stay with my in-laws, there's a local Mass in which the preaching deacon spreads obvious heresy and the celebrating priests tortures liturgy up to a point where you can reasonably doubt validity. Back when I didn't have the means to attend Mass elsewhere, my spiritual director gave me dispensation for weekends at my in-laws, allowing me to read the Missal instead of attending Mass.

Yes that is correct it does depend. Obviously heresy and a celebration of the mass in such a way as to make one doubt it's validity would be good reasons to not attend, especially of you have taken this to your spiritual director and they have also agreed.

[Basilisa Marie]

So before we run around trying to figure out who's an evil heathen, here's some context about the pectoral cross from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: 

 

 

Pectorale: 

The name of the cross used by the pope, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and other prelates entitled to use the pontifical insignia. It is worn on the breast attached to a chain or silken cord, the colour differing, according to the dignity of the wearer, i.e. green, violet, or black. It is made of precious metal, ornamented, more or less, with diamonds, pearls, or similar embellishment, and contains either the relics of some saint, or a particle of the Holy Cross. It is worn over the alb during liturgical functions.

The pectoral is the latest addition to episcopal ornaments. The custom, however, of wearing a cross on the breast either with or without holy relics, dates back to ancient time and was observed not only by bishops, but also by priests and lay people. The first mention made of the pectoral cross as a part of pontifical ornament is made by Innocent III, and its use as such only became customary toward the close of the Middle Ages. As an adornment for bishops we meet it the first time toward the end of the thirteenth century (Durandus), but at that time it was not generally worn by bishops.

 

source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11601a.htm

 

Here's what we learn: 

 

1. A true pectoral cross is worn by bishops and the like. It's made of precious, valuable materials and includes a relic. It's the most recent addition to bishopy fashions.
2. Wearing a big cross over your chest is not the same as a pectorale, and Christians of all flavors and life states have worn big crosses over their chests for centuries. 

 

So the big tacky wooden crosses we see EMHCs wear are totally A-okay. 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

Why should you even attend this Mass? The priest obviously fails/refuses to wear anything identifying him as a priest, which is in violation of canon law (and of common sense). Such priests are usually Modernists and should be avoided. 

 

So the solution is simple: go to Masses where God is worshipped or stay at home (and pray the rosary and read the missal). 

 

 

Um, because Jesus? Because it's not about you and your feelings about being liturgically comfortable? 

 

The solution is simple: Get over yourself and go to Mass. Or find a different Church. Staying home to pray the rosary and read the missal simply because you don't like your pastor's liturgical preferences is a mortal sin. :)

 

Yes I'm in a snippy mood today. 

 

I'll probably apologize for that later. 

 

Edit: It's not a mortal sin if you get a dispensation, obviously. But personally, in my opinion, that attitude generally reeks of pride.  When I say that I'm not passing a judgment on your personal situation, but rather the general attitude the quoted post conveys. I just want to make that clear. 

Edited February 20, 2015 by Basilisa Marie

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

And for all of you hip-cat EMHCs we have...
http://youtu.be/CvWXEFOgCwU

[oratefratres]

No I have a strong desire to go to daily mass. I think the novus ordo is usually valid, and thre are many graces from recieveing the Eucharist every day. but sadly, it is a parish with leaflets about Enneagram and LGBT catholic groups

[MIKolbe]

 I think the novus ordo is usually valid,

 

Well color me relieved!!!

[Basilisa Marie]

No I have a strong desire to go to daily mass. I think the novus ordo is usually valid, and thre are many graces from recieveing the Eucharist every day. but sadly, it is a parish with leaflets about Enneagram and LGBT catholic groups

 

Leaflets and heretical beliefs don't invalidate the mass, though.  

 

If it's not an ordained priest, if they aren't using wheat bread and wine, if they aren't saying the words of institution, the priest is intending to say Mass... basically if there's a defect of matter (bread and wine) form (words of institution) or intent (defective if the priest intends not to consecrate). 

 

Now, a mass can be valid but illicit. If they don't follow the rubrics for Mass, it can certainly be illicit. But that means they didn't follow the rules. Invalid means it wasn't actually a mass. I seriously recommend people go to mass where they're spiritually fed, or work to make good changes in their home parish. But ultimately you can't just skip mass because it's celebrated illicitly if it's still valid (without a dispensation).  

[Nihil Obstat]

It is at least plausible that a priest could be so radically heretical that his intent was compromised. I think that would be a fairly high hurdle though.

Also plausible, although also highly unlikely, that said priest's heresy is occult and therefore the parishioners would not even know about it.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

It is at least plausible that a priest could be so radically heretical that his intent was compromised. I think that would be a fairly high hurdle though.

Also plausible, although also highly unlikely, that said priest's heresy is occult and therefore the parishioners would not even know about it.

 

But even compromised intent can be sufficient, because the law assume intent is positive unless proven otherwise. And if it is occult, then yes, you're right - they wouldn't know, so they'd still be going to mass anyway. :) 

 

I believe it does more harm than good, though, to overly speculate about a priest's intent. Unless you actually hear him say something like "When I say mass I don't intend it to be a mass or to consecrate the bread and wine." Even serious doubts about transubstantiation don't invalidate a consecration.  

 

I just don't want people to think that they can skip Sunday mass entirely because of liturgical abuses (ones that don't entirely invalidate the mass).  

[Ash Wednesday]

I just checked and see that our phorum guidelines aren't up, I will try to locate them.

 

 

For new posters in particular, it's probably worth mentioning that we need to be careful and avoid getting into "Catholic v. Catholic" debates. They are not allowed on phatmass. In most cases, this is when Catholics start debating the validity of the Novus Ordo mass or Vatican II.

 

It's fine to criticize liturgical abuses, questionable literature and heterodox homilies in our parishes. (Lord knows the parish just minutes from where I live is awful in this regard.) But please be very careful about what is insinuated about the validity of the Novus Ordo, as it is a valid mass.

 

I hate to be a boring mother hen, but it's easy for this discussion to get carried away and we are getting way too off topic here. Back to your regularly scheduled priestly bling.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

But even compromised intent can be sufficient, because the law assume intent is positive unless proven otherwise. And if it is occult, then yes, you're right - they wouldn't know, so they'd still be going to mass anyway. :)

I believe it does more harm than good, though, to overly speculate about a priest's intent. Unless you actually hear him say something like "When I say mass I don't intend it to be a mass or to consecrate the bread and wine." Even serious doubts about transubstantiation don't invalidate a consecration.

I just don't want people to think that they can skip Sunday mass entirely because of liturgical abuses (ones that don't entirely invalidate the mass).

I mean compromised in the sense of being completely lacking. But yes.

[Ash Wednesday]

Seriously, get back on topic or I will lock the thread.

[Gabriela]

I find it annoying, for two reasons:

 

1. As someone's said already, it's flashy, screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M SUCH A GOOD CHRISTIAN!!!" Which I find to usually not be the case, actually, when someone wears their religion for show.

 

2. It's tacky as all get out. The Church cares about aesthetics, and unless you're wearing a robe, those things don't match NUTHIN'.

 

So: prideful AND ugly, both of which are unchristian.

 

Blech.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I find it annoying, for two reasons:

1. As someone's said already, it's flashy, screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M SUCH A GOOD CHRISTIAN!!!" Which I find to usually not be the case, actually, when someone wears their religion for show.

2. It's tacky as all get out. The Church cares about aesthetics, and unless you're wearing a robe, those things don't match NUTHIN'.

So: prideful AND ugly, both of which are unchristian.

Blech.

I've heard the same complaints from Catholics regarding Catholic women who wear veils/mantillas during Mass.

[Gabriela]

I've heard the same complaints from Catholics regarding Catholic women who wear veils/mantillas during Mass.

 

I can understand that argument. These days a mantilla does shout, "Hey! Look at me! I'm traddier than thou!" if only because so few people wear them.

 

They're also hideously ugly.