How seriously do we expect parish priests to take Redemptionis Sacramentum when even the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ignores its precepts?
“The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.” Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated.” [Redemptionis Sacramentum 123]
I’m not just nitpicking. How can we expect people to take the Church’s laws and precepts and teachings seriously if even her shepherds at the highest levels openly disregard them? It bespeaks a certain attitude toward the law.
Technorati Tags: bishops, canon law, Catholic, liturgy, Mass
You may not be nitpicking but you are adding your own emphasis – and in rubrical red, at that.
Could be that the vestments used at the installation were the finest and most festive matching red set they had in the Cathedral sacristy. Yes, the stoles could have been worn underneath the chasubles and dalmatics, but that would have left a pretty plain outer garment for such a celebration.
Over at Rocco’s you can find a picture of Cardinal Arinze dressed for Mass with an overlay stole. (whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/02/let-he-who-is-without-sin-cast-first.html)
What’s a rubricist to do when the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments doesn’t “take the Church’s laws and precepts and teachings seriously but openly diregards them?” What attitude toward the law does Cardinal Arinze’s brazen carelessness bespeak?
Might just be that although the document calls us to a particular standard, there are times and places when other decisions can be reasonably made. Some pretty important prelates in the Vatican seem to think so.
What’s the point of making a law, and a very specific one at that, if you have no intention of keeping. I don’t exempt Arinze from criticism if he is ignoring the law as well. I’m curious if that photo was taken before or after Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Hey, Fr. Fleming, this is exactly what I meant when I earlier commented about the vagaries of liturgists.
I can distinctly remember just a few years ago hearing (from “trained” liturgists, yes) that a chasuble with a design on it was just superfluous, since—jump right in with me here—“the COLOR is what makes the liturgical statement.”
Now, according to you, it’s more important to have “festive” stoles overlaying the chasubles. And they’re “festive” exactly . . . how? By having designs on them? So, does the rule apply only to chasubles? Or do we just bend rules whenever we (in our infinite wisdom) see fit to do so?
Weren’t you the one who argued that the meticulous observance of the rubrics is only a way to safeguard the liturgy?
You can’t be on both sides of the barn. The stole has always (in your memory and mine) been mandated underneath the chasuble. The efforts of rebellious and “smarter than the Church” clergy to create local custom by wearing so-called “overlay stoles” have never changed that fact.
Might just be that although the document calls us to a particular standard, there are times and places when other decisions can be reasonably made.
I’m with Father Aplman on this one, since his logic applies elsewhere. Doesn’t it?
Like, for example, when there are not enough ordinary ministers of the Eucharist, a “reasonable decision” can be made to offer the Sacrament in only one Specie. Even though the Church “prefers” communing under both.
Communion under one species is an allowed option.
The stole/chasuble issue cited above is forbidden.
Some options are legitimately allowed, others are not. Once we start to say that we can devise our own options, we end up with the liturgical mess we have now: honey cakes for Eucharist, clown Masses, and the like.
“I’m curious if that photo was taken before or after Redemptionis Sacramentum.”
Why the heck should it matter?! This has always been forbidden! And even if it hadn’t, wouldn’t the lack of precedence say something about it?
Geez . . . there’s nothing in the rubrics that prevents priests from presiding in clown make-up; does this justify doing it?
Also, the pectoral crosses should be inside the chasuble.
Jim: We’re talking about whether one wears a stole over or under a chasuble. Let’s all get a grip. We all know the correct rubric. Dom brought up an instance of a violation of this and insuated that this was a sign of “shepherds at the highest levels” openly disregard(ing) “church laws, precepts and teachings.” I thought this was drawing a long bow and tried to propose why such a vestural faux pas might have taken place. I wasn’t advocating any particular style of vesture, just suggesting why a mistake had occurred and the possibility that it was a matter neither of ignorance nor insurrection.
I don’t think anyone who knows me has ever accused me of holdling that “meticulous observance of the rubrics is the only way to safeguard the liturgy.”
I don’t believe that the liturgy in San Francisco or the photo of Cardinal Arinze are examples of “rebellious and “smarter than the Church” clergy” in any way, shape or form.
Dom: as Jim points out, the practice of stoles going under chasubles predates Redemptionis Sacramentum by lifetimes! It doesn’t matter when the picture of Cardinal Arinze was taken. For some reason he decided that wearing the overlay stole was the better choice at the moment. I’m just saying that sometimes circumstances warrant such choices, even by shepherds at the highest levels.
Kelly: Sweet! But I’ll never be able to consider the Lord’s words at the Last Supper as being on the same level as rubrics about vestments. You and I will disagree on this until we arrive (it is to be hoped!) at the eschatalogical banquet!
“I’m just saying that sometimes circumstances warrant such choices . . .”
There is absolutely 100% no precedent for doing so, either in the Church’s tradition or her rubrics.
So no, circumstances would not warrant this. Ever. Unless the Church herself were to issue indults to this effect.
Period.
Try again.
“So no, circumstances would not warrant this. Ever. Unless the Church herself were to issue indults to this effect. Period. Try again.”
Eric: should a bishop one day ordain you (providing you haven’t selflessly prayed for his happy death) you will find yourself in many situations when you will need to adapt to the circumstances. I hope you won’t wait for indults to be granted before serving your people when circumstances warrant that their needs are more important than rubrical perfection.
Kelly: Sweet!
I know (she said modestly).
But I’ll never be able to consider the Lord’s words at the Last Supper as being on the same level as rubrics about vestments. You and I will disagree on this until we arrive (it is to be hoped!) at the eschatalogical banquet!
Do y’think so, Father? I hope so, too! (About the banquet, I mean.)
(Although Our Lord’s words were to His first priests…just had to get that in.)
Oremus pro invicem, Padre!
(And personally…meaning don’t tell anybody this…but I have a hard time really caring about what priests wear. <g>)
Fr. Fleming:
It goes without saying that ecclesiastical laws may be “violated” for grave cause (e.g. a homeless, hungry man is not bound by the Church’s laws of fasting). Otherwise, to deliberately violate them is a mortal sin.
But could you give me a single instance when such a grave cause might present itself so that a priest—no, a bishop!—*must* wear his stole outside his chasuble, in violation of the Church’s rubrics? In what possible, conceivable situation does a people *need* their priest do do such a liturgical oddity?
“unless otherwise indicated” What does that refer to?
No, Eric, I’m not suggesting that there is a time when one would be obligated to wear one’s stole outside one’s chasuble (Sweet Jesus, forgive me for spending time on this!) but neither do I believe it would be a mortal sin to do so. I’m with Kelly – I don’t lose sleep over these questions and I’m going to bed.
Infanted:
Off the top of my head, I know that copes are prescribed instead of chasubles at certain parts of certain Masses (e.g. Holy Thursday, Candlemas, Palm Sunday).
This would be an example of an exception made by law.
“. . . but neither do I believe it would be a mortal sin to do so . . .”
This is the problem, Father. It does not matter what you or I think. You’re just a priest, a servant of God and his Church. We’re supposed to be obedient. God has bound us to obey the Church on matters pertaining to the Divine Worship.
Wearing a stole over a chasuble is not intrinsically evil. It is evil, however, to willfully and without good cause violate a directive of God’s Church. Whatever this Church binds on Earth is bound in Heaven by God. To willfully disobey the Church is thus a sin. Maybe not mortal, but certainly venial.
First, I will not have anyone using my comments boxes to pray for or hope for the death of bishops or priests. I didn’t like it when certain people hoped for the death of Pope John Paul and I don’t like it for others.
Second, it is a longstanding rule here that you should try to get all of your comments into as few entries as possible. Every time you had that submit button everybody who’s already commented—plus I—get an email. I don’t like having to wade through a dozen emails that add nothing but cleverness.
Think, write, think again, submit.
That is all. You may continue.
Sorry.
Oops!
;-D
Austin – Your calm words resonate; I apologize for speaking in haste.
I do, however, chafe at the sight of clergy in this day and age purchasing vestments with overlay stoles. Who does not know this is verboten?
And, more to the point, where did it begin? Obviously sometime after 1968—when as you know and I know, “everything was up for grabs,” and when it often seemed that the only virtue was defiance.
I would be interested in trying to understand the mindset of the man who first said, “You know, the heck with what I’ve been told to do—I’m putting a stole over the chasuble.”
My own guess is that it’s tied in with the rise of concelebration, especially in seminaries. Before that, the only stoles a parish had around were thin, unattractive ones used for communion. When concelebration became de rigeur, the wider stoles—often wildly decorated—were more available.
‘Nuff for me now.
A day late is a photo short, I guess. Where did the photo of Arinze disappear to?
In any case, I vote with the “obey the rubrics” group. (Oh, you mean we don’t get to vote?)
When I looked at the Levada/Niederauer photo I immediately thought “Episcopal bishop,” so maybe it was the ecumenical movement that introduced the overlaying stole?
Here’s an old Episcopal one.
Here’s a modern one.
And another.
Did Bishop Swing take part in the S.F. ceremony? They like to do ritual together out there.
Seminarian Eric has gone directly to the heart of the issue—-Obedience.
And our spiritual leadership gives us a very poor example of obedience. And John Paul the Great did say that obedience is a sign of love. And the world is greatly in need of this.
Cardinal Mahoney thumbed his nose at Redemptionis Sacramentum when it came out declaring those abuses don’t exist in his diocese. We now have the Jesuit, Abp Nierderauer et al challenge to the document on Homosexuals and the Priesthood. There have been any number of American acts of defiance of Church doctrine and discipline from bishops et al without consequences. An example has to be made of a few of them to show a sea change otherwise I am afraid it will be business as usual. So far I see only very mixed signals from the Pontificate.
Carrie,
The first and the third pics you posted are not of stoles at all—they are called “tippets” and are an academic scarf (usually embroidered with the wearer’s alma mater and degree) worn over the Anglican version of choir dress. They would be a kin garment to the academic hood—but more appropriate for liturgical vesture. That being said, the overlay stole thing is usually gastly. We have the white version of the S.F. set (it is called “The Tree of Life” set and is made by Slabbinck) in white at my cathedral and use it for ordinations and chrism mass. Arggh. My bishop refuses to wear an overlay stole, though, so he has commissioned a new set of diocesan vestments bearing the tau cross (like the concelebrant chasubles at the papal installation mass). Please, God, may they arrive soon!!!
Eric,
One hopes that, for your sake, neither your seminary formation team nor your bishop gets ahold of your comments here. Suggesting “homicidal prayers” for members of the hierarchy and flippently defining and dishing out mortal sins seem hardly becoming attitudes of one seeking to ascend to God’s altar and bear his mercy in the confessional. You might reflect on the latter through a prayerful reading of footnote 52 of John Paul II’s “Dives et Miserecordia.”
Orlando Seminarian,
In what posting did Eric say anything about “homocidal prayers” etc.
I thought it was Alpman who mentioned this. I could be mistaken, so would you kindly let me know what posting it was? Thank you.
” I thought it was Alpman who mentioned this. I could be mistaken, so would you kindly let me know what posting it was? Thank you.”
I believe Dom may have removed the offending post which was not mine. I was offering a negative aside in response to Eric’s suggestion.
The real reson why the overstoles were invented was because some cheap pastor figured he can buy nice stoles and plain chasubles it would cost much less than a decorated chasuble.
It was a little more than a decade ago that you had to look in vain for a company that makes beautiful, non-modern, vestments. Now, more and more, it is becoming easier to find them. On the downside, the vestments are becoming more expensive. Imagine a Cathedral having to spend $25,000 or more for a set of ordination vestments with matching vestments for the bishop, ordinandi(s), deacons, and the main concelebrants? It is not cheap. But the tide is turning and there are ways to raise funds for the vestments.
In regards to the Prefect wearing the overstole, I would guess it would be a bit odd to show up and declare to the sacristans, “I am not wearing that chasuble.” On the other hand, the Prefect was the Archbishop of the Cathedral that bought them. Maybe he is one of those cerebral types that just doesn’t see beauty if it hit him in the arse (forgive me). I have met plenty of priests and bishops like that.
Interesting exchange of views and many kernels of truth! While certainly the Matter and Form of the Sacrifice of the Mass are the most important (and necessary for validity) elements – as they are for all Sacraments – ‘tinkering’ with the rubrics can be indicative of a number of things:
-Ignorance, as in: bad formation and not knowing any better
-Expediency, as in: ‘all the right things’ not being available (think of priests celebrating Mass in times of war)
-Willful disobedience as in: “I don’t care what the rubrics say”
-“Me-ism”, as in: “I’ll do it MY way…”
Coming from an earlier time when there was little room for ‘innovation’ or ‘creativity’, I have a hard time with priests (at all levels of the priesthood) who take liberties with the Mass or the other Sacraments. I try to charitably give them the benefit of the doubt (ignorance). I don’t always succeed.
But on matter and form there can be no compromise – and certain hierarchs will have a lot to answer for…. For the rest, de minimis non curat lex.
Maniples, anyone…?
Regarding the overlay stole a friend of mine sent me the following:
“I had read somewhere about the origin of the overlay stole. From what I remember, it’s beginnings go back to the early days of
Taize, where Protestants would sometimes hold “Masses.”
The arrangement with the local diocese was that, whenever the “Mass” was being offered by someone not a validly ordained Catholic priest, the stole was to be worn over the chasuble as a signal to any Catholics attending that the Eucharist at that service was not valid.
So, maybe it’s a good thing that the Old Boy/Gay Friendly network from the left coast wears the stole in this manner, so that faithful Catholics will know enough not to attend.”
Blanchard,
The post in question was deleted by Dom, I think, because I cannot find it now.
There are more and more companies coming out with nice vestments, as Father Ethan pointed out. I am particularly fond of Holy Rood (simply known as “Spencer” by our friends in New England), but they are pricey. I am not sure about “advertising” here, so I stand to be admonished if this deviates from the policies of the blog. One could find nice vestments at a reasonable price from Luzar Vestments in England (http://www.luzarvestments.co.uk), PaxHouse in Mexico (http://www.paxhouse.com), Traditional vestments from Australia (http://www.susanmaria.com), and Immaculate Heart Vestments (http://www.ih-vestments.com). It is also very easy to find a good taylor in a parish who, having seen an example of a nice vestment and having the proper fabric, can make a pattern and then a vestment—this is the least expensive option.
All of the above choices make it very easy for people to stay within the Church’s rubrical guidelines regarding vesture—even if they are in a parish filled with overlay stoles.
If it does go back to Taize, Novak, then I wasn’t far wrong with “ecumenical” and “Episcopal,” afterall.
“Tippets” huh?…well, ya learn something new every day! The trick is to remember it all!!
Orlando:
I have never wished homicide on any bishop. Praying for the *holy* death of someone (for the good of the Church or another selfless reason) would preclude most forms of homicide.
Secondly, I have not “dished” out mortal sins to anyone. I only said, as a matter of principle, that intentionally violating the Church’s liturgical rubrics is a sin: whether mortal or venial would depend on the specific vioation.
Neither of the above is my opinion; it’s perfectly orthodox Catholicism.
Isn’t it curious that the entire post apparently showing Cardinal Arinze going against his own congregation’s rules has been deleted?
I’ve just searched pretty thoroughly for Arinze photos and have found all of them to show the good Cardinal wearing the stole under the chasuble. Did I miss the offending one?
I did find one photo obviously retouched to give him quite a ‘fro. Perhaps the same is true for the one under discussion here? It would explain the deletion.
I believe you can still find the picture of Cardinal Arinze sporting an overlay stole at
whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/02/let-he-who-is-without-sin-cast-first.html
It doesn’t work that way, for some reason.
If you really want to see it go here:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
And then scroll down to Thursday, February 16, 2006.
ANYTHING to stop what looks like a “Cardinal Arinze Hides Wrong Dressing” in the making.
Day late and a dollar short as usual…
Don’t really care or know much about what vestments are proper for what Masses but this reminds me of the other night when my kids and I watched a movie on St. Bernadette and our Lady of Lourdes. They thought it was the stupidest thing ever that Bernadette washed in the muddy water because our Lady asked her to do it. It was kind of silly at face value but I explained to them about obedience. Same thing with Eve and the Apple and then the biggest act of obedience was Jesus fulfilling what His Father asked of Him.
“Don’t really care or know much about what vestments are proper for what Masses…”
Reminds me of this story:
Mom and Dad wake the 3 kids (ages 5, 9 and 13) and start the Sunday morning task of rousing them to their morning chores of face washing, teeth brushing, hair combing and having something for breakfast. Their efforts are interrupted any number of times by sibling rivaly and brother-sister spats about who’s spending too much time in the bathroom. Mom is asking if anyone has taken the dog for his morning walk. The toast burns and there’s only enough OJ for three of the five family members. Just ready to leave for church, the eldest child, the teen, tries again to win the “I-don’t-want-to-go-to-church-it’s-so-boring” debate. She loses and begins her ritual Lord’s day pout in the back seat. On the way to Mass, Dad realizes that he meant to get gas two days ago and fears they might not make it to the church. His anxiety level rises with every turn but they do finally get to their destination at 8:55 a.m. for the 9:00 liturgy. Dad drops the family at the church door because there seem to be no parking spaces left. He parks in a place which doesn’t look like a real parking space but the car fits, even if snugly. He bolts for the church doors where the family stands looking at him as if it’s all his fault. They enter the church. They’re already singing the opening song. The usher insists on seating the family and they all fall in at the end of the entrance procession right where the whole parish will notice their late arrival. They end up in the SECOND pew. The two younger ones are beginning an elbow shoving contest and the teenager is making every effort to display her displeasure at being there at all. Father Smith makes the sign of the cross, greets the people and then asks, “Now I’ll bet you’re all wondering why I’m wearing rose vestments today!”
“Don’t really care or know much about what vestments are proper for what Masses…”
For the last 40 years we have all heard the different tunes to the same beat. That being one of disobedience.
One example was in the first post.
“there are times and places when other decisions can be reasonably made.”
We have heard them all……..“execpt for pastoral reasons”, or one can miss Mass on Holy Days of Obligation and Sundays for a “good reason”.
Some even believe that a quasi parallel church can be set up with the consecration of bishops without mandate because canon law says “if a state of emergency exists”
Plain and simple…….this is the face of liberalism.
Here’s an example of “bending the rules” to accomodate people for a good reason.
I attend an Indult Mass. We are supposed to use the 62 revision. We had a new priest arrive recently who is intelligent and pays attention to the rubrics. He noticed right away that the altar boys were praying the second Confiteor right after the priest consumes the Precious Blood. (If you’re not familiar with the Tridentine Mass, the Confiteor is a “fancier” version of what you may say in the Penitenial Rite of the New Mass, “I confess to almighty God that I have sinned.” In the Tridentine Mass, it was traditionally said three times—once by the Priest at the beginning of Mass; once by the altar boys right afterwards and again by the altar boys kneeling as the priest finishes consuming the Precious Blood.)
Father wants to obey the rubrics, but he knows this will create bad feelings. So for now he’s fudging it, not wanting to create a brouhaha that will send some borderline cases off to the SSPX. The altar boys keep saying their Confiteor; our pastor keeps giving them the absolution that follows, thus participating in their rubrical violation.
I don’t know that overlay stoles are quite the same thing. But I think one problem is just that most of the old rules had the force of custom and immemorial habit—it was “the way we do things.” Now, many of these rules seem arbitrary and juridical. Many lazier priests don’t even know what they are, in all likelihood, and they follow their own, more recently acquired “customs.”
I guess I agree with everybody, which puts me in a fine pickle. I think the priests should find a way to do what they’re told. But in those cases where it might offend people, the principle of charity and reasonable accomodation might excuse a violation. And after all, Rome seems to give in and “regularize” violations often enough, when some time has gone by. That doesn’t help convince people that obedience on these points is expected by those in authority, no matter what they say.
I didn’t make it clear in my last post: The 62 version of the Old Mass removed that third Confiteor, so technically it’s not permitted in an indult Mass.
Jeff, Blessed are the peacemakers….
I also found out that in the 1960s the stole on top was actually a real option that many priests learned.
Is there any common sense agreement that regulations or rules are necessary for a good sense of respectful order to maintain the Sacredness of the Holy Liturgy?
And if these rules and regulations come from proper authority that then the rules ought to be accepted and followed?
Very funny and partly true, Fr. Fleming!
But to tell the truth, I just don’t know enough about the current subject to be too critical or too grateful regarding the color/type of vestments that are supposed to be worn. I am learning due to finding a wonderful priest who explains why he wears what he wears at that particular Mass. He personifies obedience and humility and I know what he teaches us is the ‘real deal’ and not just his own personal opinion.
Vestments usually just elicit (at various local parishes) a sad passing thought as usually there is nothing special about them for such a grand, holy and beautiful thing like the Mass. I get more ‘worked up’ (more sad would be accurate) about missing prayers (no Confiteor ever in almost all of the AofB parishes I’ve frequented and yes, I know it’s not ‘required’ but it is a beautiful, traditional community prayer), the rarely heard longer Eucharistic prayers and the frequent ad-libs during the Mass. Then there’s the plethora of EEMs and the altar girls in sneakers and sack/rope type garb. And I haven’t even gotten into the choir (put them back in the loft, less distracting and more acoustically pleasing) and never mind the cases of the hard to find Tabernacles and the ‘could be any denomination’ homilies.
What we have lost! Give the beauty of a reverential and holy Mass – in all things – back to the people as you described in your story. It helps them to see the difference between the things of God and the things of this world.
It’s the difference between the Mass seen on BCTV and the one seen on EWTN.
Forgive me for the rant!
“I also found out that in the 1960s the stole on top was actually a real option that many priests learned.”
This was *never* a “real option,” anymore than the myriad of things taught our future priests in the seminaries in the 1960s, like clown liturgies, the non-requirement of following rubrics, permission to have sex with one’s pets or religious superiors, etc.
I’m sure Fr. Fleming can fill you in. Otherwise, check out Michael Rose’s book “Goodbye, Goodmen”.
Eric, this was a completely orthodox priest who said that Rome had not yet disallowed the option and it was a *real* option.
Colleen, I hear the confeitor at almost ever Mass I go to in the archdiocese. Also, do you speak to the priest about your concerns? It is your right and obligation under canon law to charitably approach him.
“Eric, this was a completely orthodox priest who said that Rome had not yet disallowed the option and it was a *real* option.”
Your priest, while orthodox, is mistaken. Ask him for documentation. Betcha he can’t produce it. Just because he was taught in seminary does not make it true.
As for the Confiteor, it’s not required; there are other options. Though I think it should be standard for Low (i.e. read) Masses, for a High (i.e. Sung) Mass Option B works rather well in my humble opinion.
Eric:
There were a lot of local permissions granted by Rome for permissions to do various things in the 1960s, up to and included various eucharistic prayers that were temporarily allowed in certain European countries. This was all before the New Missal was issued by Paul VI. If we’re talking about the Sixties, we’re talking about before the New Mass.
Some of these permissions were rather ambiguous and there were a lot of them. I don’t see how you could know one way or the other what was allowed where—or to what degree or how clearly—in those chaotic years.
Jeff:
I am aware of what you write, but know of nothing, not an iota of documentation, that suggests that the “stole over chasuble” was ever a lawful practice in the United States.
This last is a qualifier I should have made earlier. I do recall the French (and perhaps other European) clergy, particularly monks, being given some temporary indult on this.
I suppose it’s possible that such was also granted in the U.S.
But frankly, we need to stop taking our clergy’s words on everything. Particularly when they’re trying to justify seemingly heterodox practices and teachings, we laity need to hold them accountable: Father, can you show me where this is taught in the Church’s Scripture and Tradition? Father, can you show me where exactly the Church permits this?
If I had a nickel for every aberrant doctrine and practice by lay people who insist that such-and-such was once Church teaching or discipline “because Fr. so-and-so said so” and “This is what we were taught.” I’d be rich!
Eric wrote:
“This was *never* a “real option,” anymore than the myriad of things taught our future priests in the seminaries in the 1960s, like clown liturgies, the non-requirement of following rubrics, permission to have sex with one’s pets or religious superiors, etc. I’m sure Fr. Fleming can fill you in. Otherwise, check out Michael Rose’s book ‘Goodbye, Goodmen’.”
Here’s what I can :“fill you in” on, Eric. I was in the seminary from 1965-1973 (college and theologate). No one ever taught me about “clown liturgies” and no one ever told me to disregard the rubrics (quite the opposite!). To the best of my recollection, no one ever raised overlay stoles as an issue. There was no huge pro-overlay stole movement but it was something one saw in any number of places. Your last gratutitous category does not merit a response.
In another post you say that we need to demand documentation and not rely on “so and so said…” I wish someone had made that request of Mr. Rose before he published his collection of mostly unattributed anecdotes.
Father:
I’m glad to hear your experiences were different from so many other priests I know.
As to Michael Rose’s book, it’s difficult to see what documentary evidence he could provide other than anecdotes. I will say this; I’ve been through the “vocational inquisition” in my former Archdiocese, and after that sordid experience Rose’s book rang even more true!
Have you read Rose’s book, Father?
I’m perfectly willing to make allowances for many things that make it an unbalanced account: some ‘orthodox’ candidates had other problems, some of the problems had already been taken in hand and were diminishing by the time Rose wrote, etc. But even if only one twentieth of what he reports was half-true and was still applicable, his book raised some very troubling issues indeed. And I know good and reliable priests myself who have told similar stories of their days in the seminary; the stories mesh too well with his accounts for me to be able to dismiss Rose as guff.
I myself—a stodgy, tradition-minded, dogma-loving Papist—got the same general sort of treatment from priests and others in power and experienced one truly hideous and unjust abuse of power. So, my experience as well tallies to a great degree with Rose’s book. The main message of the book, I think, is that there’s a difference between ‘dissent as dissent’ and dissent as hyper-intolerant new orthodoxy. That there was and still is to some extent such a thing as the latter is not seriously subject to challenge in my mind.
A lot of people dismissed all the lurid Wanderer-type tales of priests abusing boys and getting away with it before “the scandal broke.” But the scandal-mongers turned out to be right. People like Seminarian Giunta may go off the deep end occasionally—but there’s some excuse for that, I submit.
Father Fleming,
It appears that you alluding to Mr. Rose perhaps being in violation the precepts of “Natural Justice”. In Mr. Roses’ case, it might just be that times and places required other decisions that reasonalbly could be made. Maybe they were for a “good reason”.
Domenico, yes. It degrades the message for many people to see authorities who don’t seem to believe what they’re telling us.
Yes, I have read Michael Rose’s book.
In one post, Eric called for documentation and not relying on hearsay, and he referred me to Rose’s book.
I was pointing out that Rose offers mostly undocumented anecdotal evidence for his theories. I do not doubt that some, perhaps much of what he wrote is true. It’s just hard to know what to believe when the accounts are not attributed and open to follow up.
Fr. Aplman,
Your story is amusing and sympathetic to the life of the modern family. It also illustrates problems typical with modern suburban parishes. For example, there is a commonly perceived problem of self-centered ushers and other lay ministers, whose authority derives entirely from the pastor.
I don’t understand why the wife and kids waited for Dad before finding a pew. Don’t they have prayers to do? Why was the family aiming to arrive only 5 minutes before Mass, instead of, say, 15? Perhaps Fr. Smith ought to encourage the faithful to undertake a proper preparation, including providing access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before all Sunday Masses?
But it seems, to me at least, that the gravest clerical faux pas is that Fr. Smith has decided to make a self-centered opening remark that insults the faithful’s catechesis and memory, and draws their focus down upon himself, rather than up to Jesus Christ, Who is celebrated in a particular and special way on Gaudete and Laetare Sundays. On the former day, the Church calls us “to worship and hail with joy ‘The Lord who is now nigh and close at hand’” (Cf. link), while the liturgical signs of Advent penitence are “suspended…for a while in order to symbolize that joy and gladness in the Promised Redemption which should never be absent from the heart of the faithful”. On the latter, the “special signs of joy” permitted in the liturgy are “intended to encourage the faithful in their course through the season of penance”, while the contrast between Lenten austerity and rose-colored festivity “is emblematical of the joys of this life, restrained rejoicing mingled with a certain amount of sadness”. With all due respect to Fr. Smith, I think that given material like that, any pastor who can’t weave together a brief opening remark that casts light into each of the lives of at least the four oldest members of your hypothetical family, stirs their memories of past Sundays, calls them to attentive participation in the liturgy that is about to unfold, reopens their hearts and minds to the Christ who is the center of that liturgy, and also addresses any potential scandal from a priest in pink, might consider omitting the optional opening remark entirely.
infanted,
It is not clear to me whether canon law actually imposes such an obligation on Colleen. Canon 212.3 says:
I have been advised that if I see a priest doing something “seriously wrong”, the appropriate and perhaps required response is for me to write the Archbishop a letter.
All,
To make a URL, use the syntax:
to produce:
Seamole:
Most of the time, it’s only fair to give the priest a chance by talking to him first. It just doesn’t seem very nice to presume bad faith and then go complaining to someone else. And who knows? It’s even possible that YOU are the one who has misread or misunderstood.
How is it that the people must always give the chance to the bishop or the priest? The people are snubbed, looked down to, considered ignorant, uneducated in Church affairs, or just plain trouble makers. Why doesn’t the bishop or priest give “a chance to the people??? Why are not the people given what is their right to have—the example of truth in all areas of the Church’s—teachings, administrations of the Sacraments, education etc??
Jeff,
My intent was not to say what is best in one circumstance or another, but merely to question the assertion that a) Colleen certainly had the obligation infanted claimed she had, and b) the obligation derived from canon law. Redemptionis Sacramentum nos. 183 and 184 impose certain obligations, for example.
For me, I like the advice given me, because it forces me to stop complaining (internally or externally) about things which are minor defects, or legitimate matters of preference or opinion. If it is not something the bishop should correct, then why should it be something for one layman to criticize? Redemptionis Sacramentum no. 173 lists certain objectively grave liturgical abuses, for example.
Lastly, I don’t think you have to presume “bad faith” to avoid an obligation on the conscience to engage in fraternal correction, at least according to how I read the article.
Seminole:
All of this is difficult stuff to sort through. There are many different things to take into account and many different pitfalls that one has to try to avoid.
I can understand those who are militant about abuses; and I think they are responsible in part for a general improvement in liturgical celebration that we’ve seen in many places.
I can also understand those who find that it has a distracting effect for them and harms their spiritual life.
It sounds like you’ve found a reasonable balance for yourself.
“It is not clear to me whether canon law actually imposes such an obligation on Colleen.”
It isn’t like some of the things are ‘wrong’, it’s just the minimalization of some things and the over emphasis on other things. A lot depends on the parish priests’ own interpretation of some of the Vatican II documents.
It’s like Dom says “fidelity in small things”—our last two parish priests used porous materials for the chalice and ciborium (glazed pottery – probably a much loved friend or family member gave them as a gift)—a small thing in and of itself but nevertheless, a disobedience and as I witness when I attend our local parish (and other local parishes), symptomatic of other ‘small’ infidelities.
In the past, I have happily complimented the priest when I’ve seen them incorporate some of the lovely traditions of our Church or commented that I missed other lovely traditions/options that have been done occasionally. Doesn’t seem to make much of an impression either way and I would guess most of the parishioners don’t realize that they have a voice. I think most Catholics just go to Mass because they love the Mass and because they’ve not witnessed anything different, they don’t realize what the Mass could/should be—- Holy Communion is the focus.
But I will say I do not understand why some/most? Priests don’t look at, for instance, the incredible beauty of say John Paul’s funeral Mass and see how most of the world reacted to it.
Colleen, the use of non-conforming sacred vessels is not a small matter, if it is a violation of Redemptionis Sacramentum, 117:
RS 173 declares that “anything that contravenes” RS 117 is “objectively…grave”.
I would encourage you to read the rest of Redemptionis Sacramentum, especially nn. 183-184.