Friday, December 30, 2011
IS THERE MORE CONFUSION NOW OR LESS WHEN IT COMES TO THE MASS?
As much as I love celebrating the EF Mass, I wish there were some flexibility for it, such as a little more vernacular and the reformed calendar and lectionary. Of course the only way to really do that is to have an EF order of the 2010 Roman Missal. That would be so easy.
On this blog it appears that the majority of those who comment are the ones who want what the actual majority of Catholics are not asking. Therein lies the rub. While I might be sympathetic to having the EF Mass at one of our normal Sunday Mass times, I know that doing this would reduce significantly the number of people who attend, especially those with children. Therefore I would never impose this on one of our normal Masses unless mandated to do so by our bishop.
We have a significant number of laity who are willing to be EMC's and find this ministry to be a calling. And we certainly have a significant number of communicants who receive from the chalice. Apart from ideological concerns why take this away from them considering that in the Church of the East the laity have always received from the chalice?
We have the modified Benedictine altar arrangement. Armageddon did not occur. But neither has anyone said yea or nea about it.
I don't think anyone would care if the Gradual was sung instead of the Responsorial Psalm and if in Latin if the English translation were provided no one would say anything. But I think most people like to join in the refrain of the Psalm; I know I do.
So do we have more confusion today? I don't think we do in our parish. We are mainline. We aren't doing anything radically different than most parishes but I think that what we do we do well and we pay attention to detail
But for the more radical shifts that the majority are not seeking. We'll have to wait for the General Instruction of the Roman Missal to be amended as well as the "norms" approved by the Holy See for use in the United States. That's just how I am. I like the law and don't believe that we should impose upon people what is not mandated.
Posted by Fr. Allan J. McDonald at Friday, December 30, 2011
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Frajm, If you ran a school, would you strive for the students to have greater mastery of the material? It is my experience that even average people perform in an above average manner when put in an above average environment.
You would not cram EF down their throats, but simply repeat the exemplary catechesis that preceded implementation of the New Translation.
Does it really make any difference what the majority wants? I wonder if the majority of people in Fr. Hillenbrand's church in the 1950's wanted Mass facing them when Fr. Hillenbrand asked for permission to do so back at that time. Also, when he did this, was he getting episcopal permission to depart from the norm at that time?
Did the majority of people want EMHC's or Communion in the hand when it started? Did the majority of people want the new English translation of the Mass before they were catechized about it?
I understand the need to follow competent authority and for consistency from place to place, it's just that we seem to be living in another period where customs and norms are being reviewed and questioned, as in the 1950's and (God forbid) the 1960's. As Ignotus has said, the Church can change its liturgical "customs" from time to time.
"We have a significant number of laity who are willing to be EMC's and find this ministry to be a calling. And we certainly have a significant number of communicants who receive from the chalice. Apart from ideological concerns why take this away from them considering that in the Church of the East the laity have always received from the chalice?"
That is true Father, except unless a Catholic has attended the Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox or Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, they might have visions of eastern Catholics taking the chalice in their hands as we do, when nothing of the sort takes place. There are no Extraordinary Ministers and Communion is distributed under both species with a sort of spoon that has a morsel of the Body of Christ dipped in the Blood of Christ. The Communicant merely opens his/her mouth wide and receives that way.
Sometimes we cause confusion by what we don't say and this needs to be clear.
We are in a more fluid and confusing time liturgically. I do not agree that we should always follow the majority, but I do agree that we should follow what our pope and bishops mandate or allow and yes, these may go against majority rule; for example there was no option in being able to keep the 1970 missal's translation of the Mass, the revised translation was imposed--no choice there. The allowance of altar girls and EMC's was allowed by local bishops and finally approved by the Holy See. No vote was taken and no vote should have been taken. So, it is really an issue of authority--firstly the pope's authority, then the bishop's local authority and then further down the hierarchical latter, the pastor's authority and yes, he has some flexibility there, but not an expansive flexibility as the pastor represents his bishop and not himself. I don't know if the pastor at St. Mary's in Greenville actually got permission from his bishop to celebrate Mass ad orientem, evidently his bishop gave tacit approval by not making him celebrate the other way. EWTN had Mass orientem and they were made to change that for an international audience and they were obedient--no vote was taken, it was on the authority of the local bishop. So what I am saying is that we should follow the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and the norms that were adapted for the USA and approved by the Holy See. That saves us from being no far out there either on the progressive side of things or the conservative side of things, because doing your own thing can work both ways!
I must disagree about the level of confusion. Frajm, your parish may be an exception, but in the Archdiocese of Atlanta, it has been my experience that there is enough variation that from one parish to its neighbor, the Mass is only recognizable at its core as being the same. Bells here, no bells there. Kyrie in Greek there, in English here. Chant in use or not in use. Venerable hymns or the banality of Haugen and Haas.
Father, it's all over the map. And that's not to mention the ad libs.
As a child, I attended in three different parishes on various occasions. There was a great difference in the relative wealth of the parishes. One had a beautiful and traditional church building, one had a modern structure, but was still decorated in traditional form, and the third (the poorest) had a rather stark building, yet a traditional altar. In all three, the priests wore fiddleback chasubles, and even in the poorest parish, the chasuble had a rich and elegant look.
In my current parish, the vestments are a thin cut above what might be seen on the Bad Vestments website. Our pastor has a fiddleback, but only one, and it is PINK, not rose. The green chasubles are very plain, and rather sad looking. The hue is an unfortunate one in that material, and always looks a bit dingy.
Still, I can get past the superficials.
I do continue to find it very disturbing that 10-12 EMHCs are routinely used. They may feel a calling, but if so, I ascribe their sense of calling to a near complete lack of catechesis on Church norms.
I go to Mass to worship. I go early, to pray and contemplate my own failings. Sadly, before Mass, the space is noisy, and the greatest source of the noise is the choir, who are laughing and gossiping as though they were in the parish hall.
I paint all this detail because it is of a piece. There is consistency, of the sort that leads to liturgical dance and giant puppets. The chalice is made of wood, and is unlined. The Gospel is almost always read by a deacon, and the homily is about half the time from a deacon.
I've been reading Hubert Jedin's History of the Council of Trent, which has made me realize that the things which I find so hard to accept are all essentially Lutheran in their origin.
Frajm, I am not sure that following the GIRM affords much consistency. I have not yet read the latest release, but I did study the previous one, and the number of options was rather large.
I find already that there are departures from even the abbreviated forms on the little booklets we have for the new translation. For Christmas I received a beautiful new Missal, and I hope that using it does not increase my impatience with deviations. My hope is that it will at least provide me the foundation from which to ask questions of our clergy regarding the differences.
There are many options and the new missal allows for the traditional four Eucharistic prayers we've had since Vatican II, the two Reconciliation ones and four newer versions for special occasions. There are also children's Eucharistic prayers being revised. I agree that we may have a bit too much diversity from parish to parish and the added EF and the possibility of the OF ad orientem increases that diversity and yes confusion-yes there is much more confusion now and much more diversity. And yes, I think some priests will continue to ad lib which is clearly not allowed except in very specific area--at the introduction of the Mass.
It is not about what the majority want. It is about what the Pope and the Church decide is proper worship. This is a top-down deal. The Church is authoritarian in nature not, God forbid, democratic. I know that gets progressivist Priests like Ignotus in a twist..doncha' love it? Hey, ya'll...authoritarian, authoritarian, authoritarian...heh, heh...hey, wait, there's more...patriarchal, patriarchal, patriarchal...heterosexual, heterosexual, heterosexual...(grin).
Father, I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but since you brought up the subject I feel compelled to post.
1) I agree with your post and I'm sensitive to your role as Pastor.
2) I won't ask that the EF replace one of the existing Mass slots because that is unfair to others.
3) I would ask that we avail ourselves of the opportunity of having 3 Priests, at least 2 who can say the EF, and establish the EF Mass at 2PM as a regularly scheduled Mass every Sunday. Make it a Low Mass if needs be, just give us a chance.
The EHMCs feel called to their Ministry and are accommodated. How many are there? 12-15? At Midnight Mass I heard one of the leaders of the EHMC "movement" complain to the person sitting behind me that it's always the same 8-9 people "carrying the burden". Our Latin Mass "Ministry" has considerably more people interested in it. Give us our chance to show our dedication to our calling. If in two years we haven't grown the Latin Mass Ministry into anything then we've had our shot and we'll be silent.
Again...not asking to take anyone's Mass slot, give us our own. Even that horrible 2PM Sunday slot, but please give us the chance to turn our calling into a Ministry.
PS: As an aaside, you allude to the fact that the majority of your Blog followers advocate for things which the Mainstream Catholics seem not to want...I agree you are right, but question your conclusion from that. Do the majority of Mainstream Catholics even know about the topics being discussed? Do they even care enough to have the debate if they were aware? Are the mainstream Catholics even truly representative of the type of Catholics the Church wants as adherents? If you can answer no to these questions then wouldn't it be wiser on all levels to encourage the minority Catholics who are involved, knowledgeable, and Living their whole lives as Catholics, and help them lead the New Evangelization?
I believe it is time for the Diocese to invite the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, the Franciscans of the Immaculatta, or one of the other traditinal orders to come to the diocese and set up a persoanl parish in the Diocese for those attached to tradition. This way anyone who lives in the diocese can be a member of that parish and receive all the traditional sacraments. The priests can assist those Diocean priests learn tradition and it can be a win win scenario. It is working in the Atlanta Diocese why not Savannah?
Fr, I realise this is a lot of work for you. Locally the resentment against the TLM is a reverse snobbery. However, it is really nice to go to an 'adult' mass, where the focus is on worship of God and a respect for the brain He gave us.
Templar, the fact that we now have three priests could be a very temporary thing. You may not know but canonically a priest should only say one Sunday Mass. Two is permitted. Permission for three is granted but four is outlawed. I was seriously contemplating eliminating the Sunday 5:00 PM Mass during the summer when priests are on vacation as Fr. Dawid and I would not be allowed to celebrate four Sunday Mass yet alone 5 if we had the EF Mass too. So practical concerns must be taken into account.
Anon @ 944: In fairness, the new Bishop probably hasn't had a chance to even consider such a question having been elevated to his See just 3 months ago. The previous Bishop was in no way to be confused as a supporter of the EF Mass, which is why there is currently no presence of any Traditional Orders such as you list. The only impact SP has had on this Diocese is in fact Father's monthly EF Mass in Macon, which was his initiative not the Bishop's, and in fact, the Bishop, contrary to the dictates of SP, issued a "qualifier" for.
Perhaps in time Bishop Hartmayer will invite the FSSP or similar to establish a Parish, but let us be patient and give His Excellency time to get a handle on his new role.
Father I understand the Canonical limits of Bifurcation, and know you have permission to Trifurcate on the Sunday you say the EF Mass.
I know too that having 3 Priests could be a VERY Temporary situation.
But I can not help but feel this has been an answer to prayers. God has placed these 3 Priests here, at least 2 disposed to saying the EF, at this moment in time for a reason. We all know that what God gives, God can also take away, but while he has given let us avail ourselves of the opportunity. With 3 priests available, no Priest would have to say more than 2 Masses. If Father Kwiatkowski is reassigned, or Father Girard called home I believe I speak for everyone when I say we would understand that you cannot do what you cannot do. We ask, neigh beg, only that given this opportunity you do what you can do while it can be done.
I agree with everything Templar has said and proposed as well as his reasons as stated. Based on the response, I also agree with the other poster that it might be time to start trying to get the FSSP, ICR, or someone else into our Diocese to "save" us. Maybe those of us who are serious about this should get organized (an even more local gathering of Una Voce supporters)...? I mean, if it's not going to happen at St. Joseph while there are three priests in residence, (two of whom we know can say the Mass) it's simply not going to happen any time soon in our Diocese.
In support of templar, and a 2pm EF Mass at St. Joseph, wouldn't the parish be more likely to keep 3 priests, regardless of when they needed to transfer; if the Bishop saw an indisputable necessity? it makes sense to me; isn't perceived necessity the root for the emhc's ministry?
It's interesting that rcg's first post used the analogy of teaching; I had already thought of the problem in that same way before I saw his post.
As a teacher, I'm aware of a few things that students often aren't. First, most students in an average class aren't going to be interested in what they're studying. Second, most will never bother to develop a grasp of the subject. Third, many won't have much of an aptitude for the subject.
The people who post on this blog are interested, and they've demonstrated over time that they know their stuff. I would thus liken them to the handful of A students that one runs across in a typical class. Combine all this with the fact that most parishioners in any parish are pretty passive, and I don't think there's a very good argument for giving their silence/passivity a lot of weight. Anyone is free to comment here: I think it's a mistake to give undue weight to the opinions of large numbers of folks who for whatever reason (apathy not the least) have chosen to remain silent, and a bigger one to attempt to read their minds, i.e., to read a particular opinion into that silence.
And if they did speak up, what if they spoke with the voice of ignorance? What if they gave inane, illogical, and loud reasons for not going with the EF? Should Fr. McD heed their opinions? What if they demanded clown Masses, or the removal of the side altars, or the use of grape juice, or a Golden Calf? What if they _all_ murmured for a Golden Calf? What if a few of them screamed loudly for a clown Mass--as loudly as we few who frequent this blog scream?
I do recognize the pastoral difficulties in making changes that might cause the sleeping giant to wake. (A wise military officer never gives an order that he knows will be disobeyed.) But if done correctly, I'm sure that Fr. McD, with his talents, could lead the flock in the right direction.
My final thought comes from the attorney--later Supreme Court Justice--Louis D. Brandeis: "I give the client what he needs, not what he wants."
(And yes, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm an elitist in this regard. Sometimes some people do know better than others.)
Marc, I think you are on the right path. The key to instituting EF or TLM as a frequent event is that a 'significant number' of the parishioners ask for it. To make oneself significant would imply not only the requests, but recruiting persistent numbers and helping prepare for the Mass so that it is a close to 'plug and play,' for the priest as possible as he will have plenty to do to learn and execute his part.
Anon@944: " It is working in the Atlanta Diocese why not Savannah?"
I would dispute that it's working in the Archdiocese of Atlanta. I offer disagreement because the FSSP parish has been around for over a decade, and remains the only place in the Archdiocese, when last I checked, where the EF can be enjoyed. Head it led to the EF being offered in other parishes, however infrequently, I would agree with your view.
However, I discussed with my pasotr that it looks a bit like a quarantine zone, and he (a canon lawyer, member of the Tribunal, and one who is fairly close to our Archbishop) said it absolutely is a quarantine zone.
I would think that is the opposite to what any of us might wish.
Bill, do you know which came first to the Archdiocese of Atlanta - FSSP or SSPX? I wonder if the FSSP showed up as a reaction to the SSPX presence...
I would rather have a quarantine zone in the Diocese of Savannah than nothing at all. I do think that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae dictate the bishop getting involved at some point to bring a priest in to celebrate the Traditional sacraments. I think that happens after the parish priests have refused the request of the stable group. So, perhaps an invitation to the FSSP would be a remedy, but it seems unlikely a bishop would do that (aside from bishops such as Archbishop Donahue, may he rest in peace). It's really a shame things would have to go that far... I simply don't understand why any priest would refuse to celebrate the Mass that served as the spiritual fuel for countless saints throughout the ages, but apparently that is the case...
This sort of beaurocratic process is why it seems to me the St. Joseph stable group needs to get organized...
Marc: "Bill, do you know which came first to the Archdiocese of Atlanta - FSSP or SSPX?"
I do not know from my own knowledge which came first. According to a story in an SSPX PDF from March, 2001, the SSPX had at that time been traveling weekly to Atlanta to celebrate Mass for 21 years. From the history of the parish on the St. Francis de Sales parish, the FSSP began celebrating the Latin Mass in Atlanta in 1994, so well after the SSPX, it would seem.
On the other hand, St. Francis de Sales parish purchased in 1999 the old Baptist church which became their home, while the SSPX chapel construction was in 2001.
Once again, parishioners tastes are being formed, not consulted. They need to be taught (by example) what is correct worship and how to behave at Mass. Most, indeed, do not have a clue what they need. God forbid what they may want...
Interesting info there, Bill. Thank you! The locations of FSSP parishes and SSPX chapels seem to be pretty random in the United States, i.e. not necessarily in large cities or convenient places, but there does appear to be some correlation among the two groups. Reminds one of the catacombs, doesn't it...
Pin, What I simply do not understand is the cry to obedience to the pastor, bishop, and Pope as regards anything that takes place in the Novus Ordo (no matter how much irreverence is shown to our Lord) and the simultaneous complete disregard of the Pope's directive to make the EF available to even the smallest group of faithful asking for it. Obedience, but only when it gels with preference, I suppose.
I simply cannot believe that in the whole Diocese of Savannah, we have maybe 4 priests who have offered public Tridentine Masses. Perhaps the loss of our Roman Catholic patrimony is partly to blame for the abysmal lack of vocations in our diocese.
The Traditional sacraments, Marc, are celebrated in every parish.
The last time I looked at the Catechism, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Marriage were the Traditional sacraments and they are celebrated throughout the diocese.
It seems you and others who misues the word "Traditional" in referring to the mass or to the sacraments, want to think that anything other than the "Extraordinary Form" of any sacrament is not Traditional. This is not correct, as has been explained.
I am willing to attend EF every week on Sundays at 2:00.
Maybe those of us who prefer the EF should get together occasionally for prayer and discussion? We can pray novenas, discuss how to avoid sin and increase our spirituality, and maybe perform some corporal works of mercy together as a group. If we had a latin 'word of the week',it would only take a few years before we wouldn't need to read the translation side of the page.
Maybe if we show that we are willing to "walk the walk and not just talk the talk", the Light of Christ will shine forth and usher in a "new springtime" for our diocese.
Marc, I'm glad if the info was of interest.
I also agree wholeheartedly with your point about the insistence of obedience to bishop, pastor and priest when their direction is toward the NO and the variations (and violations), but the denial of primacy with respect to Summorum pontificum. Clearly, however, what it is not, is obedience to Church teaching.
I have not done any investigation into locations of the SSPX and FSSP, much less into the possible correlation of their locations. I have more than sufficient on my plate just trying to find a parish where the improvisations don't make me break out in hives. ;)
I have, however, read Abp. Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics, and I found in it no sense of any desire for schism, but instead a deep commitment to the Church, and a deep objection to the violence done to the liturgy following Vatican II.
I am ever more firmly convinced that in my own parish, the catechists have made no study of the conciliar documents -- or that if any of them have studied, they suffered a very selective comprehension of the text. They also teach that the Latin Mass was never taken away. While it was never abrogated, never invalidated, it was, nonetheless, made to disappear. I was in late high school and early college during that time, and in SW Michigan, the Latin simply vanished.
Now, as we experienced the preparation for the new translation, there was great wailing and gnashing over the discounting of tradition. Tradition, in this case, being only the rupture of the post Vatican II variations.
There is a parallel selectivity among those who voted for a pro-abortion presidential candidate, despite the clear teaching of the CCC. Of course, allowances must be made for those who listened to the equivocation of certain priests and bishops....
Pater: You are adding nothing meaningful to the conversation by obstinately refusing to understand what "traditional" means in this conversation. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but at least disagree for a meaningful substantive reason and not just my use of words in their plain meaning. If you have something substantive to say about this, I'd love to discuss it with you, but your semantics straw man is a bit old at this point.
Carol: That is a great idea! Where should we start?
Maybe at St. Joseph before or after a Mass?
Marc, your attempt to redefine Traditional (you used the capital "T," makes my point valid. The "plain" meaning is that Traditional has a very specific meaning when used in a discussion among Catholics regarding sacraments.
What is "substantive" is that the celebration of the sacraments in the Ordinary form or the Extraordinary form is Traditional.
They vary historically and the rubrics differ. Nonetheless, both the OF and the EF sacraments are Traditional.
Marc, I beg of you, please don't feed the Troll. He hijacks every meaningful discussion on this Blog with his quibbling about grammar and deliberately provocative responses. When he responds to you please just ignore him. If enough of us stop responding to him perhaps he will just go away.
Pater Ignotus: do you mean that the list of Sacraments is the same traditional list as it always has been? It seems that Marc is concerned with the traditional method of executing the Sacrament. If that is so, it begs the question: is a Sacrament valid regardless of how or by whom, it is performed?
I just got in from work for the day and it is from home that I have to wait to type my comments, sorry if this is a little late.
To the point: Rather than 4 priests in our Savannah Diocese who have offered public EF Masses (since 2007), to the best of my personal knowledge there are at least 7. Two are in Macon, two are in Savannah (where they alternate each Sunday a 1:00 p.m. weekly Mass at the Cathedral). Another used to take turns with the Savannah Mass but is now relocated elsewhere in the Diocese. One other has offered it twice and yet another priest in a small rural South Georgia church has offered it once.
It's marginally better than you might think but we still have a long way to go with Summorum Pontificum in our Diocese.
Templar, I agree. I'm going to follow your advice. As a lawyer, please understand it is difficult for me to back down from such a discussion. :-)
Carol, your idea is great. Maybe after the Latin Mass in January we could try to get people together to chat. Anyone else in on this? Templar? Pin? Anonymouses?
rcg - No, the validity of the sacraments can depend on many factors. The eucharist can be confected only by a validly ordained priest, whereas anyone with the right intention and using the proper form can, in a pinch, baptize validly. A priest cannot celebrate mass in a host factory and consecrate all the hosts, since this is not the intention of the Church.
When Fr. McDonald baptizes a person using the OF of the ritual, this is a Traditional baptism, as Traditional as a baptism in the EF. It is historically and rubrically different, but it is as much a part of the Tradition of the Church as any baptism.
Carol....you are right.
We could pray the Rosary in Latin.
Mary can guide this endeavor.
I am willing to meet anywhere, anytime, in support of anything that fosters the One True Faith, although I think we shall have a devil of a time meeting after the Latin Mass in January as there will be none if my memory is correct.
Your memory be correct.
Carol and SLamb: the '62 Missal has "the Essential Prayers" side by side in Latin and English. Loads and loads of prayers. Good summary of Christian Doctrine, etc. You really should have one to accompany the New Translation.
I know this is an old example, but it makes sense.
In the 1970's there was little demand in America for Esperessos, Cappucinos and Lattes and other sorts of coffee drinks, largely because most people did not know about them. By the late 1980's that had changed, now almost everyone knows about them and the demand has exploded. Many homes have espresso machines and we even have the Starbucks chain down here in Elvis Country. The demand grew because PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT IT.
The EF is generally unknown. What little most Catholics think they know about it is negative thanks to the bitter words of the artery-hardened liberals and the mischaracterizations offered in the "Catholic" press. I once even made an announcement at a church about an EF Mass that would be taking place and the priest took over and warned the people that "This rite discourages participation and discriminates against women" (the priest and I had a lively conversation after that and have remained friends).
My point is that if more Catholics actually KNEW what the EF was like, they would have a choice and many of them would take the newly offered choice. But they won't have any choice and will never know what choices are available to them if it is never offered to them. It almost looks like there is a sinister plot afoot to make sure most Catholics never learn about their choices and never get to make that choice--am I starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist? In this case, the conspiracy is provable. Don't believe me? Get on the phone and call your pastor now and ask for an EF Mass in your parish. You'll hear one of these responses, guaranteed:
"Are you crazy?"
"Nobody wants that Mass!"
"You can't turn back the clock!"
"Do you speak Latin? Then why do you want it?"
"I didn't know you were one of the crazies who wants to erase Vatican II."
"We're a Vatican II parish and that's too preconciliar."
"I'm not about to learn that Mass and no other priest around here is going to say it!"
OR THE MOST COMMON LIE OF ALL:
"You're the first person to ask for that Mass."
For now, it looks like most of us are not going to get any choices in our parishes. If that doesn't sound like a conspiracy to you, you have to admit that it's, at very least, a sinister pattern.
I think the demand for Starbucks grew not because people simply "knew" about it but because Starbucks generated a sense of "want" in the population. This is the general purpose of advertising.
Everyone knew about coffee, but somehow the merchandising done by Starbucks convinced the gullible population that they should want (or that they "needed") Starbuck's products.
Many people know about caviar, crystal meth, Michael Jordan brand shoes, and 40 year old Scotch. Despite this knowledge, only a relatively few people opt to purchase these products.
You are indeed correct in much of what you say..Many people do not have an EF Mass or have even heard of it. How, without having it as an option on any given Sunday are people supposed to discover its riches anew, as I believe the Holy Father has stated. Folk should feel comfortable drifting between both Masses on a schedule. This policy of having to "make" the EF Mass happen by often argueing against your Priest or Bishop, buying the vestments, securing the vessels, locating and satisfying an available Priest and the long drawn out battles that often ensue smacks of having to almost buy your Mass. Helping is one thing, doing everything involved that a Mass in the OF would just have done for it is setting one Mass against the other. How many people who just want to attend, even for the first time out of curiosity who might become loyal devotees of the EF Mass are lost, go unseen, or just plain stay quiet because they know of all the "extras" they have to do that they don't have to do for an OF Mass. It is turning into the Church provides for the OF Mass and the laity if willing to do all or most of the above provides the EF. Is that right? I love the EF Mass but do not wish to engage against my Bishop or Priest for it. When I inquired the first time I was told "over my dead body". So the stable group thing in no way takes into account anyone interested in an EF Mass. It just counts folk who are willing and able to fight and finance something that the Church should just provide.
Joseph, thank you for the correction. Seven is much better than 4 for sure. It is good that a few priests are able to offer the Traditional Mass at the Cathedral for sure. I hope that continues and grows with our new bishop.
Carol, Templar, Fr. McDonald: I guess my memory failed me as well. At any rate, perhaps February, unless someone wants to try to get together earlier. I have the same sentiments as Templar, I'll do whatever I can to help!
I guess Pater Ignotus missed the headlines about the riots that ensued over Michael Jordan brand shoes this Christmas.
All that aside, Starbucks surely did an admirable job marketing and creating demand for their various coffee variants, but those products existed before Starbucks and were slowly gaining ground in the marketplace. The point is, as more people became aware of these products and tried them, the demand grew.
I almost am beginning to think that this suppression of the EF could have a reverse effect. Even though the EF is not "officially" forbidden, it exists in a state of being de facto forbidden by the current establishment. If they persist in this overreaching suppression of the EF, it may well create even MORE demand as curiosity and the naturally human desire to have what is forbidden takes effect.
No, I did not miss the headlines. The sad stories of the mania that followed the artificial "need" that was created is what prompted my using the Jordan shoes as an example.
If proponents of the EF can create such a "need" among the faithful, the desire for the EF mass will grow. I don't see that happening. Catholics all over Macon and Savannah are aware that the EF mass is available in those cities, yet a tiny fraction of those aware choose to attend these celebrations.
Has the Pope not said that the EF should be provided if requested? So, Priests who do not provide it if asked are in direct disobedience...n'est ce pas? I know that traditional Catholics do not like to make noise, but maybe they should...
Starbucks is overpriced hype. There are far better coffees and even today's house wife can make better cookies with a mix (if she can figure out how to operate the oven).
Just to be sure that Catholics all over Macon and Savannah (as well as the rest of the Diocese) are aware that the EF is being offered in those cities wouldn't it be useful to have a nice color ad in the "Southern Cross" giving EF Mass times and locations?
Unfortunately, and based on some past incidents, I share Robert Kumpel's suspicion of a "establishment conspiracy" (or at least prejudice) against the EF in our Diocese. For this reason, I truly doubt that the "Southern Cross" would print such an ad, even if someone offered to pay for it.
Perhaps Starbuck's was not the best example, but to even suggest that devotion to the EF is an artificially contrived "need" borders on...well, you know what you are saying.
If most Catholics in Macon and Savannah are aware that the EF is available to them, so much the better. That so few have chosen to even TRY attending those Masses says volumes about the attitude atmosphere of the diocese towards this Mass. Has anything really been done to promote attending these services?
If the majority of Catholics do not attend these Masses when they are readily available, there is a good chance that the majority have still not "sampled" the EF either. Of course, in many parishes, they can pick up a copy of U.S. Catholic, and read the "expert" opinions denouncing the EF and lamenting how "backward thinking" the Holy Father is.
Offer it and they will come. Let them taste it and look out. Change the hostile culture towards the EF and you could transform the Church.
I place notices in the southern cross frequently for our Sunday mass and special Ed Masses
I have a background in advertising. When I moved here in 2004, I submitted a "dummy" of a display ad to the diocese to help promote the one Mass that they had at that time.
I received no response.
I have always seen your notices and I was frankly astounded when the Mass you offered on All Souls Day made the front page. However, people's interest has to be drawn out by something more eye-catching and explanatory than mere printed notices--those are only good for those of us who already know what the EF is (and assuming they are printed timely enough to be of any benefit).
What I am talking about is an ad, using beautiful color pictures like the ones of the Mass you offered with an invitation to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form (with Mass times and locations in the Diocese), possibly with a short explanation about Summorum Pontificum and the EF, (something approaching the quality of the "Catholics Come Home" campaign ads). One good example which has already been used was put together a couple of years ago by Una Voce, Quad Cities. It may still be available for viewing on the Internet--you may want to look it up.
I just checked and the Una Voce Quad Cities ads promoting the EF are still up and available for viewing. It is called the "Altar Your View" ad campaign.
Just do a search for Una Voce Quad Cities ad and you will find the site, with an agreement for their use.
I believe that Ignotus' statement that the EF is an "artificially contrived need" speaks volumes about him and his orientation. His hostility to the EF is palpable and his attitude toward Fr, the people on this blog, and the laity in general is true clericalism...but, of a secular humanist sort, if that makes any sense. If this were a forum with moderators, he would have been banned months ago.
Pin, you're off to a bad start in the new year.
I did not say and I do not believe that desire for the EF is wholly "an artificially contrived need." If you read that into what I posted, then you are simply wrong. A fair discussion is based on what is posted, not on what you read into what is posted.
Let me clarify my meaning: If those who desire growth in the EF can create that need, as is done through advertising in the secular world, then so be it. Or, they can "uncover" that need, if is there in the first place. I don't believe that it is.
"Banning" those who disagree with you is a simplistic solution, but I suggest it is not healthy, in the short or the long run. I think Good Father McDonald does a reasonably good job in moderating comments here and I commend him for his even-handed approach.
Ignotus, I would not ban you because you disagree with me, I would ban you because you are an obnoxious agenda troll.
Post a Comment