Why Don’t Priests Follow Rubrics? Fr. Z Cheerfully Rants.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/02/why-dont-priests-follow-rubrics-fr-z-cheerfully-rants/

 

"The rubrics of the older Mass are a powerful leash indeed. When a priest obeys the rubrics of the older form of Mass, he is kept under tight control. He cannot impose too much of himself on the Mass and on the congregation.

On top of that, the mania of turning altars around – in no way asked for or required by the Council – poured gasoline on already fired up priestly pride."

 

I want to know your thoughts.

 

+JMJ

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't like Fr. Z's attitude, and I disagree with a lot of his opinions (though I do recognize that they're perfectly valid).  He throws around a lot of very serious accusations willy-nilly, ("I fear men like that will go to hell.")  

 

Like, okay, turning the altar around.  The thought behind that was so that the laity could actually see what's happening (at least this is what some sacramental and liturgical theologians have told me), in the spirit of fostering "full, conscious, and active participation" from the laity (a huge point from Vatican II).  

 

The use of a high altar is meant to be in churches with the traditional "linear" architecture.  Example:

X <-- High altar

xx

xx <-- People

xx

 

 

When new altars were being used, they were mean to be used in a "round" shape, like a lot of new churches look.  Example.

 

   x

     x

x     x

     x

   x

 

This shape is meant to remind people that Christ isn't just present in the word, the priest, and the altar - but in the community as well. This is largely ignored by the "linear" shape.  In the linear shape, the negative stereotype is that people just have their heads down doing their own thing while father says "his" mass up at the front.  In the round shape, everyone can see what's going on, they can pay attention, and we still have the imagery of father offering his sacrifice and ours to God.  The problem with the "table" altar is that it got installed in a lot of churches that literally were not built for it.  Churches have intentional architecture to foster good theology.  It's hard to transform a lot of linear buildings into round buildings.  This is why it still can have that negative performance feel - it's not the fault of implementing table altars in the round, but by not doing it correctly. 

The problem I have with Fr. Z's snarky criticism is that he spends his time talking here talking about how it's such a bad thing to have all the focus on priests...and yet that's all he's doing.  He's not considering that MAYBE things get changed because it's beneficial to the laity.  It frustrates me because it seems like he's ignoring that thoughtful, intelligent, intentional and theologically sound reasoning goes into a lot of changes, and it comes off to me as disrespectful.   People who would go over the heads of their bishops and just do what Rome does feel disobedient and prideful to me sometimes.  Like, if our bishops have decided that something like standing to receive communion is the norm, then we should obey them even if we don't like it.  If our bishops give us permission to go outside that norm (kneel), great!  

I guess I just have my own theological axe to grind, and I don't appreciate his tone.  I prefer Bad Catholic's snark, partly because he's a lay person and Fr. Z is a priest, so I feel like it's more okay for Bad Catholic to be snarky than Fr. Z.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought it was an excellent article.

[Brother Adam]

I don't like Fr. Z's attitude, and I disagree with a lot of his opinions (though I do recognize that they're perfectly valid).  He throws around a lot of very serious accusations willy-nilly, ("I fear men like that will go to hell.")  

 

Like, okay, turning the altar around.  The thought behind that was so that the laity could actually see what's happening (at least this is what some sacramental and liturgical theologians have told me), in the spirit of fostering "full, conscious, and active participation" from the laity (a huge point from Vatican II).  

 

The use of a high altar is meant to be in churches with the traditional "linear" architecture.  Example:

X <-- High altar

xx

xx <-- People

xx

 

 

When new altars were being used, they were mean to be used in a "round" shape, like a lot of new churches look.  Example.

 

   x

     x

x     x

     x

   x

 

This shape is meant to remind people that Christ isn't just present in the word, the priest, and the altar - but in the community as well. This is largely ignored by the "linear" shape.  In the linear shape, the negative stereotype is that people just have their heads down doing their own thing while father says "his" mass up at the front.  In the round shape, everyone can see what's going on, they can pay attention, and we still have the imagery of father offering his sacrifice and ours to God.  The problem with the "table" altar is that it got installed in a lot of churches that literally were not built for it.  Churches have intentional architecture to foster good theology.  It's hard to transform a lot of linear buildings into round buildings.  This is why it still can have that negative performance feel - it's not the fault of implementing table altars in the round, but by not doing it correctly. 

The problem I have with Fr. Z's snarky criticism is that he spends his time talking here talking about how it's such a bad thing to have all the focus on priests...and yet that's all he's doing.  He's not considering that MAYBE things get changed because it's beneficial to the laity.  It frustrates me because it seems like he's ignoring that thoughtful, intelligent, intentional and theologically sound reasoning goes into a lot of changes, and it comes off to me as disrespectful.   People who would go over the heads of their bishops and just do what Rome does feel disobedient and prideful to me sometimes.  Like, if our bishops have decided that something like standing to receive communion is the norm, then we should obey them even if we don't like it.  If our bishops give us permission to go outside that norm (kneel), great!  

I guess I just have my own theological axe to grind, and I don't appreciate his tone.  I prefer Bad Catholic's snark, partly because he's a lay person and Fr. Z is a priest, so I feel like it's more okay for Bad Catholic to be snarky than Fr. Z.  

 

When he wrote that accusation he was not being snarky. He was being completely serious. And we should take it seriously. Our priests are shepherds of souls and have failed the last two generations. Pray for priests. Pray for Father Z. Their job is harder than yours or mine and they will be held to a higher level of responsibility at their judgment. I love reading the stories that Father Z posts about people flocking back to the confessional after 10, 20, or 30 years because he begged them to go out of the fear of hell. We need more priests to remind us that hell is real. There are times when we do not need to be coddled.

 

I understand some people don't like that he is straight forward, but we need people like Father Z, who is a gift of us, as much as we need the gifts and attitudes of people who are different than him.

 

Also: On the failure of modern church architecture from an expert:

 

 

[Maggyie]

The thing is, I don't agree with Fr Z about the old mass rubrics. It is really not any "tighter of a leash." You can abuse the extraordinary form of the liturgy just as easily as the ordinary form. My mom call tell some crazy stories from parish life back in the 50s. Nowadays the priests who celebrate the extraordinary form are self-selected for liturgical correctness. Back when everyone celebrated the old mass rubrics there were plenty of flaky priests who did what they wanted with the rite. From what I have heard, abuse is no more widespread now than it was back then. Most parishes were very mediocre, liturgically. Not too bad and far from good.. And then every diocese had a few outstanding examples of "doing it right" and "doing it wrong." I attended the Extraordinary Form for years and it was beautiful but ultimately I had to admit the parish I was going to was pretty dead inside.

 

Liturgical problems are not so much the cause as the symptom of something that is happening. Yes the Mass is the source and summit of our faith, but that doesn't mean making the Mass rubrics more strict will fix it. I love the new translation we are using in the Mass but is it going to solve any problems? In the years since the motu proprio for the Extraordinary Form has there been a huge wave of people coming back to the Church or huge numbers of people wanting to attend the old form of the Mass? No. Rubrics are ultimately externals, important externals to be sure, but you can follow the rubrics perfectly and still have empty pews or pews filled with half-hearted Christians.

 

ETA: I think dust prefers we write out Extraordinary Form instead of saying EF so I changed it.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Maggie

[Noel's angel]

Fr Z gets more disturbing as time goes by. I agree that many of his opinions are valid, but the emphasis placed on his blog towards giving him money to travel here there and everywhere is just odd. Plus, the retreat he is holding on a cruise ship...really? It would appear he is becoming more and more unhinged. There are some posts in which it would appear an entirely different person is writing. All signs point to some sort of mental health issues.

 

[dominicansoul]

having suffered tremendously growing up in an extremely liberal parish with priests who paid no heed to the GIRM, did whatever they wanted and passed it off as a Mass,  and created their own version of Catholicism.....

 

I can say I thoroughly enjoyed Fr. Z's blog piece...

 

 

[dominicansoul]

Fr Z gets more disturbing as time goes by. I agree that many of his opinions are valid, but the emphasis placed on his blog towards giving him money to travel here there and everywhere is just odd. Plus, the retreat he is holding on a cruise ship...really? It would appear he is becoming more and more unhinged. There are some posts in which it would appear an entirely different person is writing. All signs point to some sort of mental health issues.

 

 

I agree about the raising money on his blog for trips...it disturbs me enough that I never give him any of my money.  :)

 

I've heard of retreats on cruise ships long before Fr. Z ever mentioned it.  I don't think that it's all that uncommon...

[Nihil Obstat]

Fr Z gets more disturbing as time goes by. I agree that many of his opinions are valid, but the emphasis placed on his blog towards giving him money to travel here there and everywhere is just odd. Plus, the retreat he is holding on a cruise ship...really? It would appear he is becoming more and more unhinged. There are some posts in which it would appear an entirely different person is writing. All signs point to some sort of mental health issues.

That is a pretty appalling implication to be making, going on nothing more than "I do not like him asking for money." Rash judgement at best, and bordering on calumny in my opinion.



2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

[Evangetholic]

That is a pretty appalling implication to be making, going on nothing more than "I do not like him asking for money." Rash judgement at best, and bordering on calumny in my opinion.



2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psalm 105:15 does it better than all that. Unless the man is guilty of some public sin or heresy. The Bible's clear.

[Nihil Obstat]

"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psalm 105:15 does it better than all that. Unless the man is guilty of some public sin or heresy. The Bible's clear.

Clear and succinct.

[Noel's angel]

Look at his posts; at times the style of writing has become erratic and inconsistent. There's plenty of evidence in what he has written recently to suggest he may be going off the rails a bit. I feel sorry for him.

That is a pretty appalling implication to be making, going on nothing more than "I do not like him asking for money." Rash judgement at best, and bordering on calumny in my opinion.



2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Oh, and Fr Z doesn't abide by what you have quoted.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Noel's angel

[Maggyie]

Clear and succinct.

 

Well there's calumny on one hand, and the faithful being on guard, on the other. The Fr. Z situation is certainly unusual, he is a diocesan priest who lives alone on a ranch in Minnesota and has no parish or diocesan ministry, and it's not clear which bishop he "belongs to" or how he is integrated into the life of the local church. Sometimes I read him and he seems normal and even wise, and then other times I scroll down his page and see the 2 Amazon Wish Lists, the thermometer tracking monthly donations and encouraging people to set up a recurring monthly donation, not one but two paypal donation buttons (one specifically for an "ammo fund") and it feels a little slimy. "Help! I can sure use it." he says above the donate button. Hmmm but I'm sure the local church could "sure use" another parish priest to strengthen the thinning ranks, and then he would have a salary and benefits.

 

It doesn't mean his commentary is less valid but it's not a surprise it gives pause.

[Nihil Obstat]

Look at his posts; at times the style of writing has become erratic and inconsistent. There's plenty of evidence in what he has written recently to suggest he may be going off the rails a bit. I feel sorry for him.

Oh, and Fr Z doesn't abide by what you have quoted.

I am sorry, but there are no actual reasons to be saying these things about a faithful priest of the Catholic Church. Frankly, you should be ashamed of what you are saying. You should step aside now, before you dig even deeper.

Well there's calumny on one hand, and the faithful being on guard, on the other. The Fr. Z situation is certainly unusual, he is a diocesan priest who lives alone on a ranch in Minnesota and has no parish or diocesan ministry, and it's not clear which bishop he "belongs to" or how he is integrated into the life of the local church. Sometimes I read him and he seems normal and even wise, and then other times I scroll down his page and see the 2 Amazon Wish Lists, the thermometer tracking monthly donations and encouraging people to set up a recurring monthly donation, not one but two paypal donation buttons (one specifically for an "ammo fund") and it feels a little slimy. "Help! I can sure use it." he says above the donate button. Hmmm but I'm sure the local church could "sure use" another parish priest to strengthen the thinning ranks, and then he would have a salary and benefits.

 

It doesn't mean his commentary is less valid but it's not a surprise it gives pause.

While it is not the norm, there is nothing suspicious about his situation. Perhaps you should write to the bishop in whose diocese he lives and works, and question Fr. Z's situation yourself.

It would be massively imprudent and far outside your concern, not to mention rude, but you can do it.

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

While it is not the norm, there is nothing suspicious about his situation. Perhaps you should write to the bishop in whose diocese he lives and works, and question Fr. Z's situation yourself.

It would be massively imprudent and far outside your concern, not to mention rude, but you can do it.

 

 

 

Nihil, he's a diocesan priest taking his position as a moral leader to a more-than-local level.  He's set himself up as a leader in the blog community, and we have every right to write a letter to his bishop if we think something is going amiss, or if we need clarification.  Since he has no specific parish, his audience is his flock.  

I know of another priest who has his own blog and was posting incredibly uncharitable things about some Catholics and responding to people in a very un-pastoral way.  A bunch of people wrote emails to his bishop, and he has since toned it down.  We can't expect bishops to be completely knowledgable about the online activities of all the priests in their care.  In fact, it's our job to help each other out, and the polite and proper course of action would in fact be a letter or email to his bishop.  You write to the bishop, and let the bishop take care of it.  

Edited February 10, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Evangetholic]

You're not sharing your concerns with the Bishop. You are posting them on a public forum where anyone may see. Non-Catholics like me and even non-Christians. People are questioning the man's sanity. If he teaches erroneously warn others and by all means rebuke him. But if all that is happening is that you do not understand his manner of life or like the words he chooses then there is no justification for saying so in public. It's not about him, but about the good name of Jesus Christ and the work that is the Gospel. Do not attack other Christians unless (public) sin or error on some essential point of the faith is at stake.

[Evangetholic]

Small correction: "the work that is the Gospel"  the Gospel is a work. God's work. I meant rather "the work that is sharing/spreading the Gospel."

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

OP asked for our opinions, probably with full knowledge that there's a whole lot of diversity in this Catholic forum - a diversity that's just fine.  We're giving our opinions.  I'm not concerned enough about him to go to his bishop, but I'd be within my rights to do so if I were.  If you scroll alllllllll the way down to the bottom of his blog, he has a disclaimer saying that his opinions are just his own and not representative of any organizations he belongs to.  
 

If I have no right to criticize him in public a public place (a place with the purpose of discussion of ideas, seeing as that's what a forum is) if I just disagree with his validly held opinions that HE has expressed in public...then why doesn't the same logic apply to him and his disagreements with me over my own validly held opinions?  He frequently uses inflammatory language to make his point.  Would I be denied the same right? 

Edited February 10, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihil, he's a diocesan priest taking his position as a moral leader to a more-than-local level.  He's set himself up as a leader in the blog community, and we have every right to write a letter to his bishop if we think something is going amiss, or if we need clarification.  Since he has no specific parish, his audience is his flock.  

I know of another priest who has his own blog and was posting incredibly uncharitable things about some Catholics and responding to people in a very un-pastoral way.  A bunch of people wrote emails to his bishop, and he has since toned it down.  We can't expect bishops to be completely knowledgable about the online activities of all the priests in their care.  In fact, it's our job to help each other out, and the polite and proper course of action would in fact be a letter or email to his bishop.  You write to the bishop, and let the bishop take care of it.  

So then write to that bishop, and Fr. Z's own diocesan bishop. Go ahead. That is always our right as Catholics. But some of the comments in this thread are completely inappropriate.

 

By the way,

 

I am a priest in good standing in the Suburbicarian Diocese of Velletri-Segni in Italy.  This is one of the little ancient dioceses encircling Rome, thus “Suburbicarian”.  My name appears on my diocese’s website in the list of diocesan priests.  Unlike poor Roger Maris, I have no asterisk by my name.  I have faculties to say Holy Mass (can. 903), to preach (can. 764), and to receive sacramental confessions (can. 969.1).

I am living, with the knowledge and consent of my bishop and his predecessor, outside my diocese and in the United States.  I am working on my doctoral thesis, working on the internet, writing as a columnist for different publications, and giving talks at conferences and other events.

I am not engaged in any official external apostolate where I live.  I have no assignment.  I haven’t sought anything on top of what I now do.  I can barely make headway on my thesis as it is!  (It’s about the figure of David as an exemplum of civic virtues between Augustine and Ambrose, by the way, for the Augustinianum.) Since I am not functioning publicly in any way as a priest within the diocese where I live, I do not need the faculties of the diocese and therefore I have not sought them.  I have been in the diocese with the knowledge of the last two bishops of the place.  I don’t know what the present bishop knows. I haven’t been in touch.

Think about it this way.  If a priest goes fishing in another diocese or, say, goes to a condo he buys for retirement in Florida and never functions publicly as a priest there, he doesn’t need the faculties of the local diocese.  If he travels to another place and stays there, even for some time, and yet never functions as a priest there, he doesn’t need to inform the diocese or obtain anything from them.  He can say Mass privately and go about his business as it pleases him and his own bishop back home. This is something that Ms. Zagano doesn’t seem to understand, and she has apparently allowed her less-than-well-informed imagination run wildly down a steep path.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/08/waiting-for-zagano/

[Evangetholic]

OP asked for our opinions, probably with full knowledge that there's a whole lot of diversity in this Catholic forum - a diversity that's just fine.  We're giving our opinions.  I'm not concerned enough about him to go to his bishop, but I'd be within my rights to do so if I were.  If you scroll alllllllll the way down to the bottom of his blog, he has a disclaimer saying that his opinions are just his own and not representative of any organizations he belongs to.  
 

If I have no right to criticize him in public a public place (a place with the purpose of discussion of ideas, seeing as that's what a forum is) if I just disagree with his validly held opinions that HE has expressed in public...then why doesn't the same logic apply to him and his disagreements with me over my own validly held opinions?  He frequently uses inflammatory language to make his point.  Would I be denied the same right? 

 

He hasn't the right either if he's done so. But cheek turning, submissiveness to those in authority, Christian love, and what not. and neither this forum nor this country are granters of rights, whatever those are...