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

[Evangetholic]

Agape had an entire history before making it into the New Testament. OUR Tradition, Christian Tradition is as much mine as anyone else's, imo invaldily, reads agape in ways that "make a great pretense of religion, but deny its power" according 2 Timothy 3:5. :)

 

And the point about the extra-biblical usage of the word agape is that it was applied to what husbands felt for their wives, parents for their children, etc. Paul did not invent the word, nor do I think the precision of usages Christianity has come up with necessarily relate back to 1st century intent, rather I think it was a capitulation to the fact that even though we are to be dead men, and to be supernaturally good, only vehicles for Christ to live his life in/through us--we are still in the flesh. Still bound and determined to be our haateful little chimpanzee selves even though we claim to have put on Christ. Much easier to spiritualize a perfectly good word than to get a wicked man to act like Jesus.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Evangetholic

[IcePrincessKRS]

And the point about the extra-biblical usage of the word agape is that it was applied to what husbands felt for their wives, parents for their children, etc. Paul did not invent the word, nor do I think the precision of usages Christianity has come up with necessarily relate back to 1st century intent, rather I think it was a capitulation to the fact that even though we are to be dead men, and to be supernaturally good, only vehicles for Christ to live his life in/through us--we are still in the flesh. Still bound and determined to be our haateful little chimpanzee selves even though we claim to have put on Christ. Much easier to spiritualize a perfectly good word than to get a wicked man to act like Jesus.

 

No, no, no. You didn't even read the articles I quoted or linked did you?

 

[A]ny strong affection, closeness, or devotion to things or persons. The Greeks distinguished four types of love: storge, philia, eros, and agape.

 

Storge,
familial love, is a word for the bond that exists between one who loves
and persons, animals, and the things that surround him. It is
compatible with quite a bit of taken-for-grantedness or even of hatred
at times.

 

Philia pertains to friends, freely chosen because of mutual compatibility and common values.

 

Eros
is passion, not only of a sexual nature, but also of an aesthetic or
spiritual nature, for what is conceived of as supremely beautiful and
desirable.

 

Agapic love is manifested when one person has much to give to
another more needy. It is generous self-donation without concern for
reward.
Such distinctions become especially important in discernments about marriage, because the strength of eros
love may blind one to the absence of ther types of love needed to
experience a good Christian bond that, with God’s grace, can endure
"till death do us part."

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-the-church-define-love

Edited February 11, 2013 by IcePrincessKRS

[Maximilianus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz32pSxP6gM

[Evangetholic]

No, no, no. You didn't even read the articles I quoted or linked did you?

 

[A]ny strong affection, closeness, or devotion to things or persons. The Greeks distinguished four types of love: storge, philia, eros, and agape.

 

Storge,
familial love, is a word for the bond that exists between one who loves
and persons, animals, and the things that surround him. It is
compatible with quite a bit of taken-for-grantedness or even of hatred
at times.

 

Philia pertains to friends, freely chosen because of mutual compatibility and common values.

 

Eros
is passion, not only of a sexual nature, but also of an aesthetic or
spiritual nature, for what is conceived of as supremely beautiful and
desirable.

 

Agapic love is manifested when one person has much to give to
another more needy. It is generous self-donation without concern for
reward.
Such distinctions become especially important in discernments about marriage, because the strength of eros
love may blind one to the absence of ther types of love needed to
experience a good Christian bond that, with God’s grace, can endure
"till death do us part."

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-the-church-define-love

No I didn't read your articles. I'm telling you that the word agape in particular has been spiritualized to Hades when that wasn't a needful thing. I'm telling you that none of these words include the potential for abusive speech. I am coming very close to telling you that you and the other Christian women here who are criticisng this priest are violating more than the reasonable understanding of what the inclusive English  word "love" mean, but you are also sewing dissension and confusion in your church by not abiding the biblical injunction that you learn in silence and submission (which seems to include not pettily picking apart presbyters). I do not mean for this to sound as harsh as it probably does, but I do not know how else to say it.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Evangetholic

[IcePrincessKRS]

No I didn't read your articles. I'm telling you that the word agape in particular has been spiritualized to Hades when that wasn't a needful thing. I'm telling you that none of these words include the potential for abusive speech. I am coming very close to telling you that you and the other Christian women here who are criticisng this priest are violating more than the reasonable understanding of what the inclusive English  word "love" mean, but you are also sewing dissension and confusion in your church by not abiding the biblical injunction that you learn in silence and submission (which seems to include not pettily picking apart presbyters). I do not mean for this to sound as harsh as it probably does, but I do not know how else to say it.

 

You are defining words wrong. Agape doesn't mean what you say it means. It never has. And I'm done talking to you in this thread. Peace, bro. :like:
 

Edited February 11, 2013 by IcePrincessKRS

[eagle_eye222001]

After 4-something pages, the point has been defended that Fr. Z is able to give his opinions in such form....

 

so the the next contention point to be resolved is Circle churches VS. Rectangle churches.........and GO!

[Evangetholic]

IcePrincessKRS Are you objecting factually to the idea that agape was used to describe the kinds of love I listed?

Would you like to see an example of these usages, or (and it's understandable if you feel this way, many Christians do) are you saying that how it was used outside of the Bible has no relevance to what it means in the Bible (please answer this--and please do not think I'm being purposefully uncharitable)?

[eagle_eye222001]

Any Triangle Church people here?

[Evangetholic]

What's that?

Oh humor. I tend to not get things, what with my lack of learning and all. :p

[BG45]

What a fun thread...

 

Anyhow, Nihil, that depends on what your definition of private Mass means canonically.  Do you mean the canon definition of celebrating it alone by oneself, or the definition of celebrating it with a select congregation (such as the priest's family members)?  Either way, wouldn't broadcasting it on the internet for anyone to view, invalidate the nature of it being "private", because the priest is no longer alone, nor is his select congregation the only ones "present"? Or would that mean that the internet population watching is that select congregation?

[Apotheoun]

I agree with Fr. Z.  

 

The Roman Church needs to get its liturgical house in order.

 

Priests should follow the rubrics provided in the missal and pray as the Church commands, and when the lay faithful (for good are ill) are allowed to act as extraordinary ministers of holy communion great care should be taken to ensure that they know what they are doing, and that they should dress and act in an appropriate manner.  The experience I recounted in another thread concerning my mother's final reception of holy communion is a case in point.

 

On the day my mother - a recent convert to Byzantine Catholicism - died, she asked for me to arrange her final reception of holy communion, and sadly I could not get the Byzantine Catholic priest to come and give her communion because his parish is more than 3 hours away from the hospital, and so I had to ask that the Roman Catholic hospital ministry to have someone bring her holy communion. The woman who arrived to give my mother her viaticum put my mother and my family through a horrendous experience. I will begin by saying that the woman arrived inappropriately dressed for someone charged with carrying the sacred body of Jesus Christ, and by this I mean she was basically wearing a see through shirt (thankfully she was also wearing a black lace bra). After coming into the room, she proceeded to spout anti-patriarchal comments about how evil the Church is for not ordaining women, and how the Church's hierarchy oppresses women and has brought about the deaths of uncounted women through its ban on abortion.  It got to wear my mother, who - because she had advanced emphysema - had difficulty speaking, went out of her way to begin asking me in a low breathy voice to tell the woman to "just leave!" I refused to do that, because I knew this would be my mother's last chance to receive holy communion prior to her death, and so I finally interrupted the woman in order to remind her that she had been asked to come into the room in order to distribute holy communion. She was visibly upset by the fact that I interrupted her diatribe against the pope and the hierarchy in general, but then proceeded to ask who wanted communion (n.b., only my mother and I received that morning), she then proceeded to give communion without a word of prayer or any sign that what we were doing was a sacred act. Moreover, even after I told her that my mother could not consume an entire host, she still tried - no doubt because she did not listen to a word I was saying, that is, unless I raised my voice in an aggressive manner - to give my mother a complete host, but I was able to prevent her from doing so and in the end had to take communion twice. She - at my instruction - gave my mother a small piece (about a quarter of the host) and I had to consumed the rest. Now as I already indicated, the woman did all this without a word of prayer or any indication that what we were doing was a pious act of love and devotion to Christ. Worst of all, once she had given us holy communion she resumed her attack on the Church, at which point I again interrupted her, and told her "THANK YOU . . . I am so grateful that you brought the precious body of our Lord and Savior to my mother in her last hours."  At that point the woman asked, "Do you want me to leave?"  And I said, "Yes, thank you so much for your help." Now taking into account what happened to my mother on that morning, you would think that the parish would be interested to know about my family's experience, but when I contacted them and told them what occurred, I was made to feel as if I had somehow done something wrong. My mother's finally reception of holy communion was made into something that was visibly uncomfortable for her, and no one can change that or give my mother another chance to receive the Lord's body in a more devout manner. She is dead, and that final sacred moment was turned into something it should not have been, and I will have to live with that fact for the rest of my life. I suppose it would have been better for me to simply ignore the scandal that this woman caused to my family, but in good conscience I could not.

[OnlySunshine]

I agree with Fr. Z.  

 

The Roman Church needs to get its liturgical house in order.

 

Priests should follow the rubrics provided in the missal and pray as the Church commands, and when the lay faithful (for good are ill) are allowed to act as extraordinary ministers of holy communion great care should be taken to ensure that they know what they are doing, and that they should dress and act in an appropriate manner.  The experience I recounted in another thread concerning my mother's final reception of holy communion is a case in point.

 

I'm sorry you had to endure that experience.  Obviously, the parish where that woman was stationed does not screen potential EMHCs like my pastor does.  He makes quite sure that we only allow people who are willing to follow the rules and show up when they are supposed to. If you don't follow the rules, you are given a warning and if it persists, he asks you to step down.  He's done it with 2 people that I know of.  One was not in a position to serve because her family situation was dire and required her full attention.  However, she didn't leave until Father asked her to. 

 

We also have one EMHC that wore sleeveless dresses with her cleavage showing and bright nail polish.  It took about 3 or 4 times to keep reminding her that the dress code did not permit such attire and she finally understood.  She takes great care now to make sure what she is wearing is presentable and in accordance with the dress code expected of EMHCs.

 

I'm sure, had Father come across an EMHC as you described, she would be dismissed from the ministry until she returned to Full Communion with the Church.  ;)

[Nihil Obstat]

What a fun thread...

 

Anyhow, Nihil, that depends on what your definition of private Mass means canonically.  Do you mean the canon definition of celebrating it alone by oneself, or the definition of celebrating it with a select congregation (such as the priest's family members)?  Either way, wouldn't broadcasting it on the internet for anyone to view, invalidate the nature of it being "private", because the priest is no longer alone, nor is his select congregation the only ones "present"? Or would that mean that the internet population watching is that select congregation?

Frankly I am not qualified to comment on the precise definition between public and private canonically speaking, but I do know that the same goes for everyone on this thread.

I do not think a broadcast of a Mass instantly qualifies it as public. After all, one does not attend Mass who watches even a life stream of one. Those watching are not present in a canonical sense.

[Apotheoun]

I'm sorry you had to endure that experience.  Obviously, the parish where that woman was stationed does not screen potential EMHCs like my pastor does.  He makes quite sure that we only allow people who are willing to follow the rules and show up when they are supposed to. If you don't follow the rules, you are given a warning and if it persists, he asks you to step down.  He's done it with 2 people that I know of.  One was not in a position to serve because her family situation was dire and required her full attention.  However, she didn't leave until Father asked her to. 

 

We also have one EMHC that wore sleeveless dresses with her cleavage showing and bright nail polish.  It took about 3 or 4 times to keep reminding her that the dress code did not permit such attire and she finally understood.  She takes great care now to make sure what she is wearing is presentable and in accordance with the dress code expected of EMHCs.

 

I'm sure, had Father come across an EMHC as you described, she would be dismissed from the ministry until she returned to Full Communion with the Church.  ;)

I wish the priest at the parish I dealt with had acted as your pastor does.  Instead, I was made to feel as if I was the problem.  It was a very hard time for me, and I will have to live forever seeing in my mind the expression of confusion and anger on my mother's face at what transpired.

[MIKolbe]

Priests should follow the rubrics provided in the missal and pray as the Church commands, and when the lay faithful (for good are ill) are allowed to act as extraordinary ministers of holy communion great care should be taken to ensure that they know what they are doing, and that they should dress and act in an appropriate manner.

I can agree with this.

As I think about it, I hate to be one of those jerks who wears shirts like, "say the black, do the red"; but in a non-jerk way I see an analogy between the Priest in persona Christi and Christ's willingness in, "not my will, but thine be done".

If the Priest truly is in persona Christi, should he not manifest this in the Mass, as it refers to his submission to the will of the Church, and conform himself to the Church, if nothing else, as an example of how we should conform ourselves to Christ?

As for EMHC, I think a tempering of involvement with awe and respect can certainly be in order in many situations.

[OnlySunshine]

I wish the priest at the parish I dealt with had acted as your pastor does.  Instead, I was made to feel as if I was the problem.  It was a very hard time for me, and I will have to live forever seeing in my mind the expression of confusion and anger on my mother's face at what transpired.

 

It's too bad that a priest wasn't available to administer viaticum and Last Rites.  At the very least, your mother was able to receive her Lord even if it wasn't an ideal situation, of course.

[4588686]

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

"[font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]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."[/font]

I want to know your thoughts.

+JMJ

he strikes me as a man in desperate need of a hobby.

[Apotheoun]

He strikes me as a man who is concerned that some people are treating sacred realities with a cavalier attitude.

[Nihil Obstat]

If the Priest truly is in persona Christi, should he not manifest this in the Mass, as it refers to his submission to the will of the Church, and conform himself to the Church, if nothing else, as an example of how we should conform ourselves to Christ?

With both FSSP priests I have had the pleasure of meeting, both do a thing I really appreciate during Mass. At the moments where they are instructed to turn around, to say "Dominus vobiscum" or "Orare fratres", they never look at the congregation. They keep their heads bowed and eyes cast downwards. The more I notice it, the more I appreciate what they are trying to do. They are trying as little as possible to insert themselves in the Mass. They do not want that temptation to try to 'interact' with the congregation. And at the same time it lets us as a congregation remember that the priest there on the altar is not there as himself, but as Christ. That his personality while he is up there means nothing.

[Groo the Wanderer]

this

 

and this

 

 

and this

 

 

the Holy Mass is not about us or the priest.  Some tend to forget this (us and priests).