Dear Father: Please Stop It

[superblue]

12 hours ago, truthfinder said:

And lack of kneelers has never truly been considered a reasonable cause.  Or else those medievals would have never knelt...

I still think it would be better to hire church militants with leather knockers to go around during mass and just beat those who refuse to kneel, prostrate or receive Communion by the mouth only. An people shouldn't be allowed to touch the chalice to drink, church militants should be the only ones allowed as Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers, who wear special clothing to distinguish themselves as such, and then are on a slightly higher elevated platform where they can thus pour the blood in to the mouths of those who want to receive.

Is there a way to write the pope to let him know these things ? and could it be possible to get church militants to stand outside the church before mass and double check people coming in  to make sure they are not just random people off the street an to inform them of protocol if they are, and to double check those who are catholic to make sure they went to confession before receiving . An maybe have a church militant as  a master of ceremony but for the congregation to direct everyone on what to do when during mass. Where is that form to present to the pope or Vatican ? An also we need a special church militant to inform the bishop of any liturgical abuses as well, and to correct the priest if he does commit any.

[Peace]

On 1/19/2016, 11:45:54, Cam42 said:

I'm sure that I am viewed as rigid and hateful by some.  I'm okay with that.

I don't think this attitude is very charitable to others, nor does it help the Church.

I think it is your duty to try to explain that your stance is not made out of hate. That would be in the best interest of the other person, rather than just allowing him or her to continue to think that a sincere Catholic is motivated by hate, and saying "If you feel that way it is OK by me."

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

But are you really going to complain about that? What are you going to say? How DARE they take 3 minutes to be welcoming to visitors?! The People of God have a RIGHT to attend Mass as it is written in the book of rules!!

Given the choice between those two alternatives, I'd rather a Mass said strictly according to the rubrics, rather than one in which I'm "welcomed" in that manner. The focus is supposed to be the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary represented in an unbloody manner, not ourselves. Even these departures from tradition that may seem innocuous detract from where our prayerful focus ought to be.

If you want a meet and greet, nothing is saying that the faithful can't schedule a coffee hour after Mass; this is something I'd actually encourage. But let's instead keep the time between the sacristy bell and the last note of the postlude sacred time.

Edited January 22, 2016 by bardegaulois

[truthfinder]

Superblue,

you've now commented rather snarkily on several of my comments.  Yes, I'll admit traddies do have a reputation for being holier-than-thous, it's not always rightfully deserved.  When it comes to standing, I've seen more standing during an EF Mass because people needed to comfort their children, and there was no cry room.  Or people who don't kneel because they can't. And there was no fuss about it.  The best church greeter I ever come across was at an EF parish - she quietly greeted us, knew that we were new and made sure we had all the right papers and books - not condescending, not touchy feely but completely welcome nonetheless.  

I'm starting to wonder if it's the EF you're having a problem with and those who might be particularly aggressive in their defense of it or the Catholic church in its totality. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

Given the choice between those two alternatives, I'd rather a Mass said strictly according to the rubrics, rather than one in which I'm "welcomed" in that manner. The focus is supposed to be the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary represented in an unbloody manner, not ourselves. Even these departures from tradition that may seem innocuous detract from where our prayerful focus ought to be.

If you want a meet and greet, nothing is saying that the faithful can't schedule a coffee hour after Mass; this is something I'd actually encourage. But let's instead keep the time between the sacristy bell and the last note of the postlude sacred time.

I am not saying this applies to you, but I have seen people take that to such an extent that it seems to turn into a form of spiritual gluttony. You don’t want to get into a mindset where you start to think “How dare you take away from my time with Jesus or distract from my prayers in order to greet some random stranger?”

I do not think that greeting one’s brother takes the focus off God or takes glory away from God. If that were the case the Church would have eliminated the greetings at the very beginning of Mass.

I think that greeting a visitor keeps the focus on Jesus and gives God glory. Various parts of the Bible tell us that when we do kind things to others that in effect we are doing them to God Himself.

I do not think that we want to put the rubrics on a pedestal. I don’t think the current rubrics even existed prior to 50 years ago, so obviously it is not the only means of worshiping. It is not as though the rubrics are some magical formula that will cause a person’s focus to be on Jesus, or if a specific set of rubrics is not followed a person’s focus will not be on Jesus. Although certain methods of worshiping can help in that respect it is ultimately the disposition of the person’s will that matters. If the disposition of your will is to commune with God would he deny you? Would Jesus say “Oh the priest said “sisters and brothers” instead of “brothers and sisters” therefore I shall exit the building because the Mass was insufficiently reverent"?

I do think that some people are a bit too caught up on the rubrics. I live in Arlington VA and it is a fairly conservative diocese. There are two parishes that offer the EF within a 15 minute drive of my APT. I have been to EF Masses. I have been to “Black and Red” NO Masses. I have been to “liberal” Masses in DC. At least from my experience, I cannot say that my worship was more “God focused” in one parish than the others. I feel like my worship was the same in all parishes, even though the specific form was different.

I cannot tell what is in a person’s heart but some of the times people who tout the rules so much seem to be more caught up in the idea of having things done “my way” or “the right way” or pointing out others errors rather than bringing genuine Glory to God. I have found myself falling into that attitude sometimes when I attend my girlfriend’s church. There are a group of people there earnestly worshiping God and instead of joining in and singing a song of praise too the Lord I think to myself “Why do they have a TV? That is not the proper way to worship.” I am more caught up on form than substance.

One Catholic Church I have been to in DC has a huge gospel choir like you might find at a Protestant African American Church. They do not chant or sing the parts of the Mass in a so-called traditional way at all. They do it in a much more vibrant manner, and they add in various other worship songs during the liturgy. What are you going to say to that? “No. No. No. The rule book does not say that this is the time to sing a song of worship to the Lord. We only sing songs on the way in, on the way out, and during collection, because that is what the rule book says.” ? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. They are sincerely worshiping God and bringing God glory. I can live with the fact that it is not in strict adherence with the rule book. And I would bet a penny or two that Jesus likes the songs too.

But let me ask you and some of the other traditionalists this question. If you had a “Black and Red” NO parish in your vicinity, would you attend it or would you continue to attend the EF? It would seem to me that if someone asserts that that Church’s guidance should be strictly adhered to when it comes to the form of worship (as typified by the phrase “Say the black do the red”) - then you would want to attend the form of the Mass that She has indicated as being more suitable for the spiritual development of Catholics today.  You would attend the NO, right?

Or would you continue to attend the EF anyway because in your own private judgement it is the more “reverent” way of worshiping? It seems that if you would continue to attend the EF anyway you would be inconsistent.

[Not A Real Name]

2 hours ago, truthfinder said:

Superblue,

you've now commented rather snarkily on several of my comments.  Yes, I'll admit traddies do have a reputation for being holier-than-thous, it's not always rightfully deserved.  When it comes to standing, I've seen more standing during an EF Mass because people needed to comfort their children, and there was no cry room.  Or people who don't kneel because they can't. And there was no fuss about it.  The best church greeter I ever come across was at an EF parish - she quietly greeted us, knew that we were new and made sure we had all the right papers and books - not condescending, not touchy feely but completely welcome nonetheless.  

I'm starting to wonder if it's the EF you're having a problem with and those who might be particularly aggressive in their defense of it or the Catholic church in its totality. 

You might be overthinking it. I dont think he knows what he's talking about. He just likes to talk. 

[bardegaulois]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

But let me ask you and some of the other traditionalists this question. If you had a “Black and Red” NO parish in your vicinity, would you attend it or would you continue to attend the EF? It would seem to me that if someone asserts that that Church’s guidance should be strictly adhered to when it comes to the form of worship (as typified by the phrase “Say the black do the red”) - then you would want to attend the form of the Mass that She has indicated as being more suitable for the spiritual development of Catholics today.  You would attend the NO, right?

Or would you continue to attend the EF anyway because in your own private judgement it is the more “reverent” way of worshiping? It seems that if you would continue to attend the EF anyway you would be inconsistent.

I would venture a guess that the reason that there are so many devotees to the Extraordinary Form nowadays is because what you call "black and red" Ordinary Form parishes are comparatively quite rare. Were they the rule rather than the exception, I truly don't believe that there would have been so great a clamour, starting with Lefebvre, for the return of the Traditional Mass. Now that the cat is out of the bag, though, it's not going to go back in very easily. There are reasons other than liturgy, moreover, to frequent a traditional parish, such as better pastoral care and a stronger sense of community.

For these reasons I would not abandon any parish in which I hear Mass at present. Moreover, I'm bound to a parish and a community that sponsors a monthly TLM as an instructor of altar boys and occasional Master of Ceremonies, a task for which I cannot easily train a replacement. Nevertheless, I'm sure that I would register at the local NO parish, hear daily Mass there, and contribute to its support, perhaps even agreeing to work as a catechist or using my training in Gregorian chant in the case that it is needed, hearing the TLM on Sundays.

It's not a matter of either/or; why can we not have both/and? It would be very enriching to my own spiritual life, for sure, and we can all remember what Pope Benedict said about "mutual enrichment." I don't know where, though, you're getting your information about the Novus Ordo, however, being "more suitable," and how that accords with Summorum Pontificum.

[truthfinder]

55 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

You might be overthinking it. I dont think he knows what he's talking about. He just likes to talk. 

Fair enough. It was a bit of a hasty comment on my part. 

[superblue]

3 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

You might be overthinking it. I dont think he knows what he's talking about. He just likes to talk. 

 

2 hours ago, truthfinder said:

Fair enough. It was a bit of a hasty comment on my part. 

so you two crossed lovers are trying to tag team me, nice try, trolling failed, welcome to the phantom zone, my iggy collection.

 If I comment " snarkily " it is because of the blatant stupidity that requests such a response. But when their is a blatant troll patrol I just stop wasting my time and enjoy  just seeing normal people hash it out on here.

[Peace]

14 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

I would venture a guess that the reason that there are so many devotees to the Extraordinary Form nowadays is because what you call "black and red" Ordinary Form parishes are comparatively quite rare. Were they the rule rather than the exception, I truly don't believe that there would have been so great a clamour, starting with Lefebvre, for the return of the Traditional Mass. Now that the cat is out of the bag, though, it's not going to go back in very easily. There are reasons other than liturgy, moreover, to frequent a traditional parish, such as better pastoral care and a stronger sense of community.

Thanks. I guess because the parishes around me are more "traditional" I don't have a sense as to how liberal the entire landscape is out there. . .

Quote

For these reasons I would not abandon any parish in which I hear Mass at present. Moreover, I'm bound to a parish and a community that sponsors a monthly TLM as an instructor of altar boys and occasional Master of Ceremonies, a task for which I cannot easily train a replacement. Nevertheless, I'm sure that I would register at the local NO parish, hear daily Mass there, and contribute to its support, perhaps even agreeing to work as a catechist or using my training in Gregorian chant in the case that it is needed, hearing the TLM on Sundays.

That is fair enough. But if your parish switched from TLM to a "Black and Red" NO parish, its not like you would go looking for a TLM parish. My sense is that a lot of traditionalists would. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with that. If folks like the TLM they should be able to attend it. More than anything I would just object to folks who assert that the NO is inherently inferior, even when done as intended.

Quote

It's not a matter of either/or; why can we not have both/and? It would be very enriching to my own spiritual life, for sure, and we can all remember what Pope Benedict said about "mutual enrichment."

Both/and is cool with me. But I think that general attitude goes against the idea of "Say the black and do the red". I don't see why the Mass need be with extreme rigidly, exactly the same in every parish around the world. Some things I would consider an abuse. I don't want to see a giraffe in the procession any more than you do. But if a particular parish adds in a special greeting for visitors, or a few extra worship songs, I just don't get what is so wrong about those kind of variations.

But if the mind of the Church is really "Say the black and do the red" so be it. There could be a crack down from high but I don't think we have seen that yet . . .

Quote

 

I don't know where, though, you're getting your information about the Novus Ordo, however, being "more suitable," and how that accords with Summorum Pontificum.

I took the Pope Benedict Document to be saying "It's cool for ya'll to practice the EF because that is what some of you have been used to." But otherwise I thought the church made the changes to the form of the mass (such as using the vernacular, etc.) because She thought those changes would be more beneficial for the every day parishioner. . . I think you can see it in the same document that folks here have been quoting for the "No changes to the liturgy" rule.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Edited January 23, 2016 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace, have you looked closely before at Sacrosanctum Concilium, specifically the exact changes that were called for and the principles which were articulated, against the actual Novus Ordo Missae? In my opinion, the Consilium went far far beyond what had been intended.

Perhaps simplest of all: did S.C. call for a totally new Mass to be created ex nihilo?

[bardegaulois]

In the realms of tradition-dom, Peace, you'll find very few who doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, and most of these are likely hearing Mass at irregular chapels anyway. Among my community there are many who attend a Novus Ordo daily Mass and many, myself included, who will often hear a Novus Ordo Mass on a holy day of obligation on which they are unable to travel due to work or other reasons. The problem they have is usually not the Mass itself, but the ars celebrandi that goes into it, often for muddle-headed "pastoral" reasons, that leads to a dilution of the sense of the sacred not just within the celebration, but within the lives of the faithful.

When I lived elsewhere, I heard a Novus Ordo Mass daily at an old Polish parish. There were confessions available before every Mass, the Rosary was said before Mass, and the Angelus was prayed afterwards. An organist and choir were there daily, often singing Gregorian propers, and most of the sung parts of the Mass were in Latin (Greek, in the case of the Kyrie) as well. On most days there were at least five, if not at least ten altar boys, and there were always incense and torchbearers. At least 50 people heard this Mass even on ferial days, and Solemn High Masses were occasional (a young parishioner was an FSSP seminarian). When I left, people were debating whether ad orientem celebration would be more appropriate, but in any case, the altar arrangement used by Pope Benedict was common.

While attending there, I never wanted for reverence in liturgy. Had I stayed there, I might never have desired to go full 1962-missal. In fact, my first reaction after hearing the Mass there for the first time was, "This actually resembles Roman Catholicism!" But I moved and couldn't find aught.similar so I started hearing the Traditional Latin Mass. As I said, in the face of banal and worldly liturgical practice, the cat of the Traditional Latin rite is out of the bag, and it has become the go-to celebration for those desiring more reverent liturgy. The way matters have developed, I don't believe it will give way easily.

[Peace]

14 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Peace, have you looked closely before at Sacrosanctum Concilium, specifically the exact changes that were called for and the principles which were articulated, against the actual Novus Ordo Missae? In my opinion, the Consilium went far far beyond what had been intended.

I haven't created a comparison chart, but the NO seems to generally do what is called for in it. Where does the NO go too far, in your opinion?

Quote

Perhaps simplest of all: did S.C. call for a totally new Mass to be created ex nihilo?

Hmm. What do you mean by "ex nihilo"? Do you mean "out of nothing" as it translates to, or something else?

It seems to me that the NO is based on the traditions of the Church, including some of the traditions found in the EF, and some from among other traditions of the Church. I don't think the NO was just invented out of thin air or without good reason.

While I have you on the line - do you think that it is a bit unnecessary for people living in America today to attend a Mass that is recited in a language that virtually nobody speaks, either here in the US or around the world? Wouldn't that have been basically the same as people living in Rome saying "Although Latin is the langauge that we all speak, let us continue to conduct the mass in Amharic or Greek as that was the language of the early Christians, even though none of us actually speak it." It seems that they chose to do it in their own language, so that the common man could actually understand it without specialized study. Exactly what is the argument for holding the Mass in Latin today, even though nobody speaks the langauge, and given that it is not even the the language of Jesus or the early Christians? It would seem to me that if you really want to adhere to tradition for the sake of tradition then we should go back to the beginning and speak Greek during Mass, not Latin.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Peace

[Peace]

11 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

In the realms of tradition-dom, Peace, you'll find very few who doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, and most of these are likely hearing Mass at irregular chapels anyway. Among my community there are many who attend a Novus Ordo daily Mass and many, myself included, who will often hear a Novus Ordo Mass on a holy day of obligation on which they are unable to travel due to work or other reasons. The problem they have is usually not the Mass itself, but the ars celebrandi that goes into it, often for muddle-headed "pastoral" reasons, that leads to a dilution of the sense of the sacred not just within the celebration, but within the lives of the faithful.

What exactly are the bounds of "tradition-dom" by the way? It seems to me that one man's tradition is another man's novelty. It seems that the Church has had many different rites and variations of the Mass throughout Her history, and that there has never been a single uniform "traditional" form of the Mass that the entire Church held to at any point in time. This supposed-claim of uniformity or a common standard in the Church with repsect to the form of the Mass seems to be something that people have imagined more so than something that has existed in reality. If the EF is "tradition" to you or the particular community of faith from whence you came, it is totally cool to me that someone would want to continue it. But then to hold that up and to say that it is THE tradition or the traditional standard to which the entire Church must be held seems to be a bit outlandish to me. I don't think the Church has ever had that type of uniformity when it comes to the Mass.

Having "the sense of the sacred" is completly cool by me as well, as it should be for any Catholic, but at the same time I don't think that must lead us to the conclusion that "XYZ is the sacred way" and "ABC is not a sacred way." For certain groups of people "XYZ may be the sacred" way of doing something while for other groups of people XYZ may not be sacred at al but ABC is the sacred way of doing things. I think there is a video online somewhere by Cardinal Arinze where he talks about how dance is a traditional form of worship in many African cultures and therefore may be appropriate in Mass, while in the USA it would not be appropriate at all.

From my standpoint at least, the EF does not strike me as being particularly sacred or reverent compared to other forms of the Mass, although I can see how some people would think that the EF is, depending on what "tradition" is for that person.

11 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

When I lived elsewhere, I heard a Novus Ordo Mass daily at an old Polish parish. There were confessions available before every Mass, the Rosary was said before Mass, and the Angelus was prayed afterwards. An organist and choir were there daily, often singing Gregorian propers, and most of the sung parts of the Mass were in Latin (Greek, in the case of the Kyrie) as well. On most days there were at least five, if not at least ten altar boys, and there were always incense and torchbearers. At least 50 people heard this Mass even on ferial days, and Solemn High Masses were occasional (a young parishioner was an FSSP seminarian). When I left, people were debating whether ad orientem celebration would be more appropriate, but in any case, the altar arrangement used by Pope Benedict was common.

While attending there, I never wanted for reverence in liturgy. Had I stayed there, I might never have desired to go full 1962-missal. In fact, my first reaction after hearing the Mass there for the first time was, "This actually resembles Roman Catholicism!" But I moved and couldn't find aught.similar so I started hearing the Traditional Latin Mass. As I said, in the face of banal and worldly liturgical practice, the cat of the Traditional Latin rite is out of the bag, and it has become the go-to celebration for those desiring more reverent liturgy. The way matters have developed, I don't believe it will give way easily.

I think I would say the same thing here. People express respect or reverence in different ways. It kind of seems like in your mind "Roman Catholicsm" is synomomus with a somber Mass with lots of incense, Gregorian chants and so forth. But I think those are things that developed among Western Europeans 1000 years after the time Jesus walked the Earth. Again, if you like it cool by me. Stick with it. But I don't think you want to end up thinking "OK this Mass has Gregorian chants and the other Mass doesn't therefore this mass is more reverent."

But again, that doesn't mean you can proceed down the aisle with a giraffe behind you. Some things are obviously irreverant. The idea that there is one standard to which all must adhere, or that what is tradition to one person must be tradition to all, is where I would object I think . . .

[Nihil Obstat]

Will try to reply tomorrow, more likely Monday. This weekend is absolute insanity for me, and my reply requires some research and quoting.