Monday, December 2, 2013


Alright, let's admit it, a variety of music can be used in the Mass, even the EF Mass. For example there are complex Mass settings that were sung by choirs who could do them in the pre-Vatican II period and these were far from Gregorian chant or polyphony. Many of the concert Masses sung as an actual Mass went against papal sensibilities of the 19th century.

So today, we have banal music inflicted upon the Mass, usually hymns that replace the official words of the Mass for the Entrance, offertory and Communion chants. (Unfortunately the omission of the Propers is a licit choice for these in the current GIRM which future revisions needs to eliminate this choice!) And of course even if the official words are used, these could be set to more "contemporary" sounds and licitly so.

I agree that music poorly selected and poorly executed or poor music for the Mass sung in a beautiful way (the latter more of a problem that the first because it gives credibility to poor liturgical music) is the basic problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

But beyond the banal liturgical music there are priestly problems that the laity often like and applaud, both figuratively and literally.

For the last three months, I've either been a con-celebrant or a member of the congregation for Mass and this is what I have experienced:

1. Music selections from disposable hymnals (OCP)that were written in the 1960's and 70's (such as the St. Louis Jesuits stuff) that I had not sung since my first parish assignment from 1980 to 85 where we had a very good folk choir. The nostalgia of this was not positive for me in anyway whatsoever. It tells me that priests who chose this musical chaff experience it to this day in their own parishes. Thank you Oregon Catholic Press! NOT!

2. After the entrance song, priests like to ad lib even prior to the "Sign of the Cross." Usually the ad lib is a mini homily that has a humorous tinge to it to make us laugh or smile, but the ad lib is spontaneous and folksy and completely alien to the prayerfulness of Mass begun with the Entrance song, which actually begins the Mass. But you wouldn't know that because of the silly ad lib after it is sung and then the priest transitioning to actual prayer again by saying, "Let us BEGIN, In the Name of the Father..."!

3. Then after the greeting, there is another homily explaining what's coming up, like a tease on the Today Show. It is like a homily on the readings and this transitions us into the Penitential Act.

4. Then the homily is another laugh fest and a history of what happened to that particular priest during the last few days. Lots of laughing too!

5. Then after Communion, there is some more ad libbing and homilizing and the Final Blessing.

6. Some priests simply cannot bring themselves to actually bless the congregation without including themselves in the blessing and they even say it wrong! "May Almighty God bless US, In the Name of the Father and the Son..."

Even if contemporary, banal music in a Broadway style is used during the Mass, most unfortunate of course, but permissible currently, if the following suggestions are following the the priest-celebrant, at least the Mass can have some modicum of a proper celebration without the personality of the priest or congregation inflicted upon it:

1. Read the actual black print of the Mass and do what the red print tells you to do and don't ad lib.

2. Don't ad lib after the Entrance song and understand the entrance song begins the Mass (the Introit), not the Sign of the Cross!

3. Don't give additional homilies after the Entrance Song, after the in Greeting and After Holy Communion and certainly not after the Universal Prayer! Tell no jokes!

4. Don't let your personality get into the way and if humor is used, use it only during the homily and make sure it ties into the point of the homily. Tell no jokes that have nothing to do with anything after the Entrance chant, after the Greeting or after the Prayer after Holy Communion!

5. Make sure the altar is decorated in the pre-Vatican II way as Pope Francis allows and seem to require even when celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist toward the congregation. Use actual ad orientem if possible for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

6. Use tasteful vestments, not cheap and banal if modern, and not gaudy if traditional.

7. Get rid of all music that is of the Folk Genre and its current offspring.

8. Get rid of OCP disposable hymnal, in fact get rid of OCP!

9. Chant the Official Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons even if other songs are chosen to supplement these, no matter what style of music is chosen, even the banal!

10. Priests, don't ad lib, read the black and do the red. Again, priests don't ad lib, give multiple homilies, be folksy or use your own words. Don't do that, I repeat don't do that!

Pope Francis shows or models the way for priests to celebrate the Mass even when banal, Folk music from the 1960's is selected for the Mass with tambourines and all, oh, the nostalgia of it all. This was at a Roman parish yesterday, Sunday, December 1st. Please note the pre-Vatican II altar arrangement:

And Pope Benedict in Roman parishes and the continuity between him and his successor!


Gene said...

It is probably both but, from what I have experienced, most Priests are the problem.

Anonymous said...

Both. Priests are certainly a huge part of the problem, but you have to consider A) the issues which the Mass itself which allows these problems to manifest, B) what the intent of the Mass is in terms of the realities it conveys, and C) the intent of those who put it together.

Bret said...

GIA is far worse than OCP.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think the capitalistic, consumerist music industry that has developed in the Church since Vatican II is the culprit and certainly GIA and others are to be held responsible but only to a certain extent--the local bishops are responsible for their inaction and inability to establish a good national hymnal based upon the propers and good devotional Catholic hymns.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

It is a combination of priests and laity who are the problem, but mostly priests and their bishops. I can remember when folk music was first established that most congregations bristled at it and found it not Catholic in ethos, but honky tonk! That is no longer the case today since we have cooked our congregations in the crock pot of banality as it concerns honky tonk, Broadway sounding music.

Henry said...

The immediate problem stems from several post-VaticanII generations of unformed and malformed priests, exacerbated by the nonexistence OF rubrics that encourages them to do their own personal things to the detriment of the faithful whom they subject to serial liturgical abuse.

Unfortunately, there is no solution other than the biological one. I've therefore come to wonder whether there's any point even to discussions like this of the OF problem, because in fifty years of observation of priests I've never personally seen a single one change his spots for the better--once ruined, always ruined.

In the meantime--except for special situations like our sterling blog host here (a rare exception to the afore-mentioned general rule)--the only solution available for the typical individual worshiper is to only attend Masses celebrated by priests ordained since 2000, preferably ones whose ars celebranda is further refined by TLM experience.

Gabby said...

The problem has many levels:
1. choir members who grew up with the little paperback volumes of Glory & Praise and make music choices based on nostalgia;
2. use of untrained musicians (how many in your parish choirs actually read music?) in many smaller/poorer parishes;
3. priests who can't be bothered to argue with the choir about their choices;
4. priests who really don't know anything about music and couldn't care less what's sung as long as there is music;
5. people in the pews who don't want to make the effort to sing anything but the blandest, simplest melodies, who think the music must entertain them and who, in many parishes, are the same age as the choir and also reliving their teen and early adult years;
6. a lack of catechesis about Mass in the last 2 generations - while Mass can make you feel good, that's not why you're there. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard "I don't go because I don't get anything out of it."

As for hymnals, Canada has a national one, the "CBW III", but 'good' it isn't. It contains too much OCP & GIA material, only 2 or 3 Latin hymns and a few choices for the Latin Ordinary. Couldn't they have at least included all of "Jubilate Deo?"

Of course another major problem with having the CBWIII in the pews is the intro which was penned by a bishop now convicted of importing child pornography and defrocked. Talk about being slapped in the face each time we open that book!

John Nolan said...

The Novus Ordo per se is not the problem. The present situation has come about as a result of:
1. The Gadarene rush to vernacularize. The Mass, in Latin from the end of the fourth century until 1964, was completely in the vernacular by the middle of 1967. Choir directors were told that they could no longer use the familiar Latin settings of the Ordinary.
2. As early as 1964 the priest was described as "presiding over the assembly" (see Inter Oecumenici, issued in October of that year). This meant that he had to face the assembly and this, coupled with the vernacular, revolutionized the dynamic of the Mass.
3. Seminarians were formed in liturgy by progressives who pushed the more extreme views of the liturgical movement which were dominant in the Consilium and which were backed by Paul VI. The fact that he got cold feet later is neither here nor there. Priests who had been trained in the older form followed the example of their younger confreres. Many felt liberated from the constriction of the Roman Rite rubrics and enjoyed being the centre of attention.

All this was conducted in the febrile atmosphere of the decade 1964-1973, a decade of naïve optimism and massive social change. Western culture lost confidence in itself; civilized values were overturned to the extent that prestigious philosophers idolized totalitarian mass-murderers like Chairman Mao. It would have taken a Gregory VII or an Innocent III to navigate the barque of Peter through all this; instead we had the weakest pope of modern times.

newguy40 said...

I don't know Fr. All I know is that with every new priest comes a different set of ad libs.

Last Sunday, the father changed "Lamb of God" to "Our Emmanuel". And, he seems to have a difficult time with the Orate Fratres. He says, "My friend, pray that our sacrifice...."

I'm just weary of all this ad libbing. I think you priests just like to hear yourselves talk and then get the hand shakes as the parishioners leave.

Pater Ignotus said...

Too many of the new prayer translations beg to be re-written. The rules set down by LA, a number of which were not followed by the translators, have resulted in clunky, hard to proclaim, hard to understand texts.

Many priests, myself included, make adjustments to some of these prayers for the sake of making the mysteries they express understandable to the people who pray them and hear them prayed.

"Say the Black" is a cute slogan, but there is more, much more, to worshipping God in the liturgy than just following all the rules.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

No matter how well intentioned you think your expertise or worse yet, personal piety as it regards the words of the Mass are, I would include myself amongst the laity who resent the priest thinking his words are better than what the bishops of this country as well as the Holy Father have approved. Where do you stop, good Father, any Father, in improvisation and imposing on your people your pride?

John Nolan said...

In which case, Father Kavanaugh, I fall upon my knees and give thanks that I will never have to attend any "liturgy" that you celebrate (sorry, preside over).

Pater Ignotus said...

Good Father. First you cannot include yourself amongst the laity because you are a cleric.
You ceased being a lay person at your ordination to the diaconate.
You can share the concerns of the laity or you can be resentful like the laity.

Second, this has nothing to do with 1) pride or 2) piety. It has to do with 1) good English and 2) good communication.

As you yourself have noted numerous times, some of the prayers are clunky. So, I use my God-given (and teacher-trained, thank you, Fr. Briant Halloran, OSB) mastery of the English language, and my God-given ability as a very good communicator to make adjustments as needed.

Where does it stop? It stops when the translation rules of LA are re-written and the Missal gets a really good translation.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI, it is clericalism pure and simple and taking on an authority you simply do not have unless your bishop has given you this authority which I believe he has no authority to give you.

So clericalism and the abuse of authority are serious issues and canonical as it concerns changing the Mass which Sacrosanctum Concilium expressively forbids.

newguy40 said...

"As you yourself have noted numerous times, some of the prayers are clunky."

**So what. Say them anyway.

"So, I use my God-given (and teacher-trained, thank you, Fr. Briant Halloran, OSB) mastery of the English language, and my God-given ability as a very good communicator to make adjustments as needed."

**Who asked you to do this or gave you the authority to do so?
As if anything you could say would be an improvement to the liturgy. Do you think those participating in your Mass WANT you to do this? Hardly. Many like me literally cringe at your PRIDE and temerity.

Sadly, this is what so many of us experience week after week from prideful priests who think they know better and want to entertain us with their wit.

Pater Ignotus said...

newguy - Maybe if you listen to the "ad libs" or the adjustments you will discover that they are an improvement on the clunky grammar, the awkward placement of dependent and independent clauses, and the oddball syntax.

Why use clunky translations when it is possible to make them more elegant and smooth?

Anonymous said...

"Expressly" is the word you wanted, Fr. McDonald, not "expressively."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Bottom line PI, you expressly have no authority, not to make it up as you go or to borrow from the Anglican Use liturgy to fit your tastes or to go back to the 1970 version. You have no authority, pure and simple.

newguy40 said...

PI --

You didn't answer my questions.
By what authority do you have the right to change the liturgy regardless of how YOU preceive YOUR changes to be elegant and smooth. Ans: You don't.

I'd refer you to my first post to this article. It is inconceivable to me that a priest wiil knowingly change the words of the Agnus Dei as this one did. Perhaps this father percieved HIS changes were.... as you so self righteously stated... "elegant and smooth".

Candidly, I have to wonder if you are a priest or not some troll. If you are so sure and confident in your application here, why not give out your real name and diocese, parish or order?

Gene said...

Ignotus is Fr. Kavanaugh of Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Macon, Georgia…the third Church in a two Church parish. He has indeed been trolling here for a few years, setting Fr. MacDonald up as an antagonist and generally annoying the devout, believing Catholics on the blog like some demented chihuahua that runs out from under the couch occasionally to snap or whine. When asked once by another blogger if he believed in the Real Presence or the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, he refused to answer, saying the question was a trap and "inquisitorial." So, this is what you are dealing with. Have fun...

Pater Ignotus said...

newguy - I'm Fr. Michael Kavanaugh, Holy Spirit Parish, Macon.

The "O Emmanuel" switch is unfortunate, motivated, I suspect, by a desire to attune the text to the Advent season. I don't think he had translations in mind when he made this unnecessary switch.

It's neither clericalism not self-righteousness that motivates the adjustments I make in the prayers. It is a desire to make the prayers more understandable, without changing their meaning or the theology they express. As I have stated here often, an essential purpose of the mass is to communicate the saving mysteries of Jesus to the People of God. When the structure in English of the translations can be improved, I do my best to achieve that.

newguy40 said...

Gene -- Thanks for the info. I don't think I can come up with anything as witty as you. As I've grown weary and touchy in my old age.

Chris Hall said...

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh,

It is clericalism on your part. Because you think that I or any other lay person is "too stupid" to understand the Mass if you don't "dumb it down" for us. That's clericalism. Which stems from pride.

Pater Ignotus said...

Chris - I have no reason to think that you are stupid, so, no, I don't think that you or other lay people are stupid.

Joseph Johnson said...

Why have an approved translation of the Mass (approved by the USCCB and Rome) if each priest claims to reserve the right to modify it to what HE thinks best communicates the Saving Mysteries?

Pope Benedict XVI once said that conservatives want order and he is right. Laity have the right to expect priests to follow the approved texts word for word and to follow the prescribed rubrics exactly.

And, yet, some (especially clergy) wonder why some of us still want Mass in the Extraordinary Form as an alternative. Well, one of the reasons some of us want it is because we can usually expect more uniform celebrations of the Mass. The texts and rubrics will be more faithfully adhered to.
If the clergy wants people to love and appreciate the OF more then they should dedicate themselves to making the celebrations more faithful to what the Church has given us (as in the Tridentine Form) and less variant and individualistic according to the private whim and judgement of each individual priest. Bishops should insist on this.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

For any priest to change the words of the Mass (apart from those areas where the rubrics permit it) there are one of three implications:
1. The priest is too stupid to understand the prayers and projects this onto the congregation but it is the priest who is stupid.

2. The priest, because of clericalism and the double whammy of it, both priestly and academic thinks he knows better and can translate better and the laity really are stupid in his academic clerical mind.

3. The priest is prideful and so much so he can't admit it and shifts the conversation to the periphery and does not address the cause

Gene said...

Ignotus, Most arrogant people are not aware of how they come across. You talk down to people on this blog all the time…which is funny because your actual level of theological/philosophical knowledge is about that of frogs and electric toasters.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - I know a bit about frogs - I was a biology major after all and did dissect several of them along the way. Toasters, well, I know how to use one, but when it doesn't work I take it to the shop.

If you think I am talking down to you, well, that is your issue, not mine.,

Good Father - It is also entirely possible that the translation of the prayers is poorly done, as you yourself have noted is the case in several cases.

No, I am not stupid - in fact, I have been blessed with a pretty good intellect, for which I am grateful.

While you may presume that the faithful are stupid, I do not. I never said they were, I never suggested they were. It is you who are here "shifting to the periphery" the on-going discussion of the weaknesses of the new translation of the missal.

Gene said...

Ribbitt! Ribbitt

Carol H. said...

The newest translation of the Mass is a bit poetic.

If someone publicly reads a poem aloud without first going over it to himself, the reading will be clunky. If he goes over it ahead of time, and notes where the stresses in each sentence belong, the reading will be beautiful.

It seems to me that the problem lies with the preparation before Mass, NOT the translation.

Chris Hall said...

Fr. Kavanaugh here is well you call or lets say suggested me and the rest of us laity stupid. *(Look Between Here)*

"Too many of the new prayer translations beg to be re-written. The rules set down by LA, a number of which were not followed by the translators, have resulted in clunky, hard to proclaim, *(hard to understand texts)*.

Many priests, myself included, make adjustments to some of these prayers for the sake of *(making the mysteries they express understandable to the people who pray them and hear them prayed)*."

Though I understand the new and Improved translation of the NO Mass quite well. Better than the older translation. Though not as well as I understand the TLM. And that is in Latin. Go figure...

Pater Ignotus said...

Carol - I prepare assiduously, I assure you. The redundancies, the run-on sentences, the juxtaposition of multiple dependent and independent clauses, the distances separating subjects and verbs - these and other syntactic oddities are the sources of clunkiness.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But PI, But PI, even if what you say is true, much of it hyperbole, and many who would disagree with you, including the Executive Secretary of Vox Clara who taught us in Rome, you are certainly free to express your opinion, but you are not free to rework what Pope Benedict approved at the behest of the USCCB and other English speaking bishops. If changes are to be made, you tell them, and then maybe, changes will be made, but not until then and certainly not on your own authority because as I have brilliantly pointed out, you have no authority whatsoever to change the language of the liturgical books.

Chris Hall said...

Father Allan,

Amen!! And Bless you!

Pater Ignotus said...

"... as I have brilliantly pointed out..." Yes, Good Father, you are familiar with hyperbole...

And it is actually surprising that the Vox Clara chief stands behind his work? You know, because you read the Pray tell Blog, that many professional linguists do not share his views.

Chris - I am glad that you are fluent in Latin. Truly. However, you represent less than one one-hundredth of Catholics, so using your fluency in comparison isn't that helpful.

I have sat with laity and asked them to parse some of the interminable sentences in the new translation. They, including one retired English teacher, find it confounding.

I am a first-rate speaker/writer of English, and the translations we now have are anything but top-notch work. The translators, in many places, violated the rules laid down by LA, adding phrases, omitting phrases, constructing English translations that simply do not correspond to the Latin.

Chris Hall said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

I am not fluent in latin. Though the english translations and how the Mass is celebrated I understand.

Fr. Kavanaugh-
"I have sat with laity and asked them to parse some of the interminable sentences in the new translation. They, including one retired English teacher, find it confounding."

Good. The new translation of the NO is meant to have a different syntax. Its meant to be (un)common to the human ear. It is not meant to sound like regular common conversation, its meant to be transcendent.

It Makes you pay attention at Holy Mass. It helps you at active participation in the Holy Sacrifice.

Fr. Kavanaugh-
"I am a first-rate speaker/writer of English, and the translations we now have are anything but top-notch work. The translators, in many places, violated the rules laid down by LA, adding phrases, omitting phrases, constructing English translations that simply do not correspond to the Latin."

Well Latin does have a different syntax. It does not follow our sentence structure we have in english. If you have ever heard Yoda in the Star Wars movies, that is how latin would sound if translated directly to english. Well following latin's structure.

Though I do agree with you the new translations aren't top notch. Though they are far better than what we had. As a friend jokingly said. Google translator does a better job than the old translation was. To which I responded that we all can't be Saint Jerome.

Pater Ignotus said...

I don't agree that Yoda-speak helps us enter more fully into the celebration of the mass. Rather, I think it leaves us wondering, and not about the mysteries of salvation.

Why are we following the structure of Latin? How does that communicate more effectively, more clearly, the mysteries of Jesus Christ?

Why do you suggest that unusual syntax results in a greater appreciation of transcendence? I mean, if that were the case, the translators should have kept the English even more in line with the Latin syntax.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI, your horizontal understanding of the Mass as though the prayers of the Mass are directed to us and not to God is breath taking in its corruption. I suspect you pray the prayers in a proclamation voice and toward the people because of this ill-informed and corrupt theology that you have embraced over the last 25 years or so, novel in its approach and without any foundation in Catholic doctrine or spirituality.

The prayers are directed to God and he understands them even if we don't. The Mass was just as efficacious for the laity when it was all in Latin as it is when all in the vernacular.

If you or some of your parishioners who are obsessing on the new translation can't understand it, then find a translation you can understand and study it before Mass, but you and your congregation have no authority whatsoever to change the words of the Mass (unless the rubrics indicate "these or similar words." No authority whatsoever.

Pater Ignotus said...

Good Father, I have repeatedly stated here the the mass has two purposes: the praise and worship of God, Father, Son, and Spirit, and the communication of the saving mysteries of Jesus Christ to the people of God. Both are essential; neither can be omitted.

That you have chosen to ignore that oft repeated statement indicates to me that you are 1) sorely lacking in reading comprehension skills, 2) self- deluded, or 3)simply dishonest.

I pray the prayers in the manner called for by the GIRM. And I received very good formation in liturgy in seminary. You have acknowledged here often that you, in your seminary, did not.

And if you want to see someone obsessing over the new, sorely lacking translation of the missal, go look in the (BOMBSHELL!) mirror.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, PI, I have humbly, with the greatest of humility, admitted the malformation i had in the Liturgy in the 1970's through about 1986. But thanks be to Bishop Lessard and his guidance (especially as it concerns narcissism of priests who change the words of the Mass as though theirs was superior)I began to change slowly but sure. This was kicked into high gear when around 2002 or so I began celebrating an all Latin Mass in the Ordinary Form in my previous parish of Most Holy Trinity, which you know well, and realized how important Gregorian Chant and chanting the propers of the Mass are--the first time I actually celebrated the Ordinary Form of the Mass with Latin spirituality and Catholic identity. Then in on September 14, 2007 I began celebrating the EF MAss and discovered anew what the Ordinary Form could be like if only it developed organically.

I recommend my journey to you since you seem to be on a journey of 1980's ideology and theology as it concerns the Mass, no matter how much better your praxis in the seminary and beyond was, because you are still stuck in the 1980's horizontal ideology of the Mass while only given a nod to modernity as it concerns the new course of emphasizing the vertical as Pope Francis realizes is lacking in the Catholic liturgy since Vatican II, the adoration aspect.

Pater Ignotus said...

And if "just as efficacious" was your true measure if things liturgical - and it is not, it is merely a phrase you find, for the moment, appealing - you would put away the incense, the maniple, the Latin chanting, and all the other accoutrements of the liturgy. The mass would be " just as efficacious" without them...

The mass has two purposes, Good Father. Now you are simply being dishonest. I am not going on your " journey" to dishonesty.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The Mass is efficacious when done by the book in either form and with or without all the options that are allowed. SAY THE BLACK AND DO THE RED and don't improvise for you have no authority to manipulate the Black in the vernacular or the red according to your whims and pride.

Pater Ignotus said...

And lest you persist in this "the mass is efficacious and it doesn't matter what the people hear and understand or don't hear and don't understand," please re-read this section from Liturgiam Authenticam:

25. So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts’ dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision.

The content is to be EVIDENT and COMPREHENSIBLE. The language is to be EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE.

So when you say "The Mass was just as efficacious for the laity when it was all in Latin as it is when all in the vernacular." you are failing to take into account the very rationale for the new translation - that of understanding and comprehension.

Pater Ignotus said...

And when you, Good Father, drive home to Augusta and exceed the speed limit so egregiously that you are subject to a "Super Speeder" fine, by what authority do you do that?

Is it PRIDE? Is it ARROGANCE? Is it some individualistic antinomianism?

Seems your references to "authority" are merely a matter of personal convenience.

Gabby said...

English is my second language yet I have no problem understanding the new translation. Hey, I even know what gibbet means even though Bishop Galeone found it problematic.

My Pastor, OTOH, keeps referring to dominations instead of Dominions in the various Prefaces. The former administrator insisted changing 'all the clergy' to 'all of us' in EP II. I'm well aware that both changes affect the meaning of those sections.

Chris Hall said...

Fr. Kavanaugh-

Obedience to authority is the greatest sign of humility. Even if you do not agree with it. Changing the words of the Holy Mass that the authority in question, the Church, has commanded you to say. Just because you think they it sounds better, is a show of pride. Which is the opposite of the virtue of humility. You may question that authority in a humble way if you don't understand it's reasoning. Though as our Father in heaven has commanded, you are to summit to that authority. Even if it irratates you. Just think of the graces God will grants when you humble yourself in such a matter and under such circumstances.

JDJ said...

Father, you are fighting a losing battle with PI here just as the parish of MHT did when he was there. My advice, for what it's worth: ignore PI and maybe he will eventually fade away as he did from MHT (if memory serves, you were a big support to him when he had his traffic altercation in Augusta!). Trust God to deal with his issues.

PI has been after you for a long time, starting publicly in the Southern Cross many, many years ago. Only you and he know the reasons, but God will put it all right eventually.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI when I speed, I know that i am breaking the law and make no excuses about it when caught. I own up to my law breaking, pay the fine and speed no more.

Joseph Johnson said...

"I pray the prayers in the manner called for by the GIRM." This is novel! I never knew that the General Instruction (Institution) of the Roman Missal gave each individual priest the authority to disregard and change, as he sees fit, the approved text of the prayers contained in the same Missal!

'Truly amazing!

Gene said...

PI has belief issues of his own. He projects his self-loathing and anger onto others so he doesn't have to deal with his own baggage. This is Psych. 101 folks (unless you were in one of those "rat-oriented" programs).

John Nolan said...

I am always suspicious of those who just can't bring themselves to write 'Mass' with a capital 'M'.

Gene said...

Ignotus thinks if you capitalize it you are referring to the state of Massachusetts.

Anonymous said...

Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.

Gene said...

Anonymous…and your point is?

Anonymous said...

One should say "dominions" or "dominations" according to whatever the approved translation says. But, in the abstract, either is a correct and traditional translation. It may be that on this point the priest about whom a comment-poster complained simply was saying "dominations" out of habit from what he was accustomed to saying in English "from of old" - i.e., from the days when the actual liturgy was in Latin. After all, the Latin of the Common Preface says "dominationes." - Ancil Payne