Obviously, such fantasies are not the case very often if at all, and sometimes we need to go to a different parish than the one we are used to. Such is life. But what about when the parish we go to is the last one we would ever want to? A quandary indeed.
I think many of us can feel like that sometimes - when the church we have no other option than to go to is almost nothing less than the most "spirit of Vatican II" saturated parish you could ever imagine. It's all there; or perhaps, it is better to say that it isn't really all there. No crucifixes, the Tabernacle kept off in a corner, ad-libbing, crayon art, no kneelers, two billion "Eucharistic Ministers" (properly known as Extraordinary Ministers), and a partridge in a pear tree.
Unfortunately, I had to go to one of these kinds of parishes (I don't mention the name out of charity) this weekend, and it was a total nightmare. The Mass began with a lay person wandering up and down the aisles asking people to introduce themselves (Jesus, sacramentally present, remains largely ignored in the corner somewhere), followed by no Sign of the Cross but rather a little children's hoedown song that went "Come on children, gonna tell ya 'bout Jesus". Eventually, after much chatting, the priest kind of, sort of, got around to the Mass proceedings. But what followed was even worse - talk in the homily about the Church's oppression of women, refusal to listen to the laity, veiled comparisons between LCWR issues and Old Testament prophets, "intellectual oppression" (no idea what this means at all), and to top it all off, an ad-libbed consecration of the Precious Blood: "And do this in mrmrm...in my memory". Oh, and no "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world..."; no, this is replaced by some "Bread broken so that we might be whole" type of routine.
And when a parishioner says, in response to where you normally go to Mass, that "Ah, that's fine if you like the churchy thing", you know you're in trouble. Frankly, I don't enjoy sitting through Mass wondering if it is even licit and valid. My focus should be on what's going on - the Paschal Mystery. I'm not trying to be uber-picky about everything; I just think the faithful, including myself (however sinful and unfaithful I am), have a right to go to a valid, reverent Mass.
But this is precisely the point I wish to make for any readers struggling to drag themselves to a parish that is so infected with modernism, haphazard ad-libbing, crypto-protestantism, new age thought, and all the rest - if the Mass is valid, then it doesn't matter at the base of it all. I know, it shouldn't be that bad - but still, nonetheless, if the Mass is valid, then go into that Mass for the same reason and with the same burning heart that you would go at any other more orthodox parish. Why?
Because of Him:
Of course, the easier solution would be to go to the parish closest to you that is orthodox, that has a valid, licit, and reverent Mass, that can boast of holy clergy and dedicated laity, that hasn't been utterly decimated by being "open to the openness of the spirit of Vatican II", which, frankly, is anything but being open to the Holy Spirit, in my opinion.
But if you do have to go to "that parish", the one you'd rather avoid, the one you hate going to - if you have to go, go for Jesus. He is, after all, the reason you go in the first place - not for the beauty, not for the smells and bells, but for Christ and Christ alone. And until the wierdness from all the misinterpretating and twisting around of Vatican II dies down, it might just be a cross we faithful have to bear for the time being.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the premise of this article. We definitely go for Jesus. However, I am sometimes put off by the sole focus on the Eucharistic Jesus. Not only in the spirit of Vatican II masses, but also in Novus Ordo Masses where people passively sit in their pews as strangers to one another. I am no one to critique, but I find my experience of Church to sometimes be sorely lacking. Where is Ecclesia? Where is the assembly of God, the kingdom of priests that He has set apart to praise Him? Where are the members of Christ's body who we should be connected in ways that show that blood is thicker than water? I know that we are united to the rest of the Church in the Eucharist but I find myself exasperated when I think of how foreign parishes can feel.
The Eucharist IS THE reason why we attend Mass. For no other. We receive HIM to go out as witnesses of the flock.I experience Ecclesia through my friendships with my fellow parishoners which have been formed over the times we've spent celebrating many Easters, Christmases, attending Cell groups etc. We have experienced bonds as a Church community when attending Deanary and wider events organised by the Church: as witness gathered in Hyde Park (numbered 50-000 ish)supporting the Holy Father and steadfast devotion to our Lord and Savior; raising much needed funds to support victims of an earthquake in Italy;offering your services as part of the Homeless Winter shelter....
DeleteAs a result of our involvement in the parish we have built up strong bonds of communication, prayer, trust, support and know for sure, we can rely on our parish family for support and encouragement in times of need and have experienced the joy and happiness from our fellow parishioners when we have celebrated main events in our lives.We are also involved in Ecumenical events which has opened up the sense of Ecclesia with our Christian brothers and sisters from other denominations.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI see your point for sure - in fact, the communal aspect of the Church is something I often grapple with a lot - long story.
But I wanted to draw special attention to the eucharist as the source and summit of our faith, not to draw attention away from the communal gathering itself, but to show that behind it all, that communal gathering is there because of Christ. Know what I mean?
Pax+
J
How will the problems ever be solved if the parish is not named "out of charity"?
ReplyDeleteThe Mass is not a social gathering. It is a sacrifice.
Gabriel,
DeleteI'm not sure...grant me the grace of being new at the practical side of everyday Catholicism.
I did inform my parish priest, and wanted to write a letter to the Bishop, but then thought began to get really scrupulous over the matter...fell into a kind of "what's the point" feeling - so much of this kind of thing seems to be going on in parishes all over, and it bugs me, but maybe it's just a cross to bear. In other places, Catholics are lucky to have any Mass at all without threats of violence and death. But at the same time, we shouldn't settle for liturgical abuse just because we live where we do either. Just thoughts anyways...if you have advice on what to do in cases like this, do let me know.
Pax
J
Wow, this is such a great topic, one that hits close to home. For the sake of disclosure, first I have to say, I'm very blessed to be situated in an area within a wonderful diocese that provides me numerous choices within a 15 or 20 minute drive in any direction that, by and large, I would say are Catholic with a capital C, have great clergy and are attended by mostly devout and pious laity. Many churches offer weekly Holy Hours and Eucharistic Adoration, some offer a monthly or weekly EF Mass.
ReplyDeleteThe church closest to me is in my neighborhood, so close, I can walk within 10 min. However, this parish offers none of the things mentioned previously. The difference in this parish and the others is night and day, and although not nearly as bad as the parish mentioned in the article, definitely has palpable similarities. Anyway, after attending Mass at one of the other parishes more to my liking the Pastor went out of his way to invite me to register. After discussing this with him and explaining I was already registered at my neighborhood parish, he still encouraged me and told me to write a letter explaining why and seeking permission from our Bishop if I decided to do so. I thought about it, decided I couldn't ignore the invitation and I'm now re-registered in the Parish of my liking and LOVE it. I haven't abandoned my neighborhood parish, but I don't attend Mass there any longer. It's a great place for frequent visits to the Tabernacle as I can usually count on finding myself alone with no distractions and I still go there for confession.
Good for me right? Actually, often, I'm not without scruples about this decision. Sometimes I wonder if I didn't sell out, if I didn't reject a great opportunity, if I shouldn't have stayed where God put me and with ever greater hope and faith sacrifice my likes in the interest of change?
I offer all this in the hope that anyone regretting a lack of choice, that they might see the great opportunity being presented them. Although, I'm sure we shouldn't be deprived of certain things, I'm not sure that easy choices always present the greatest blessings and opportunities?
Hi Dismas :)
DeleteGreat response, and some real food for thought there. It's funny because before about a week or so ago, I had no idea that one had to "settle down" in a parish, as it were. I've been gallivanting about, going to all the churches and seeing what they're like without knowing, haha. But I think it's good to see what's out there. It was great to experience the Byzantine Liturgy, the Latin Mass, and the Anglican Ordinariate - it makes the experience of being Christian all the richer.
I think, as far as your doubts go, you shouldn't worry whether you made the right decision or not. The parish should be one where you feel at home, shouldn't it?
Pax friend,
J
At 51, I'm _just_ old enough to remember the undeniable reverance of the Tridentine Mass and the changes that followed--much of which did cause me to abandon the faith for 26 years (don't worry, I "reverted" February 2002). If the theological liberals can't take reverence and piety and orthodoxy then pray for them and let them go (as a side note, my reconciliation-confession was done by a priest who has since departed for a schismatic liberal "catholic church"--I found that out when I heard him justify his "jump ship" on NPR of all things!)
DeleteAs Catholics we are concerned with Eternal Truths and the expeirence of the last 40+ years seems to really show a strong correlation between irreverent worship and heterodoxy
--Saber Bob
I learned of the parish registration stuff from my mom. Every diocese has parish boundaries. Depending on where you reside you fall into a particular parish boundary, much like our public school systems are set up. It makes sense from a pastoral and financial point of view in order that a Bishop can plan and provide for His flock in each parish within His diocese. Seeing how transient we've become I'm no longer sure people pay much attention or realize it's importance and value.
ReplyDeleteGallivanting is definitely fun and interesting, but I also see the importance of being rooted in a home base especially in regard to building community.
In retrospect, the parish which I re-registered at, where a priest took a personal interest, that offers Eucharistic Adoration, Holy Hours and many other things also happens to be where my heart and my money now are. Home is definitely where the heart is and I now certainly feel at home. Thanks for that!
Excellent post. I especially appreciate the last paragraph, considering I have had similar experiences.
ReplyDeleteA couple questions:
1. Is the photo with this post one of the church you attended?
2. I know you do not want to mention the name of the church, but could you at least name the diocese?
I would say that there are a few nuances to this question which you do not seem to address. There is a hierarchy of values in the Church and the highest law is always and everywhere the salvation of souls. The Code of Canon Law states that for a grave reason the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is not binding. Such a reason could be physical, such as too far to drive or disease, but it need not be. There might be moral reasons that are grave enough to make assistance at Mass non-obligatory on Feast Days.
ReplyDeleteIn the case mentioned, I would say that there are two principal reasons that I, in my humble opinion, would consider grave enough: 1) the danger one puts oneself in by occasion of sin, 2) the danger one puts others in by reason of scandal in the moral sense.
Let me explain what I mean. In the first sense, we are always to be careful of our eternal salvation and the basis of salvation is Faith. Now, if one regularly goes to a parish that offers heretical preaching, there is the risk for a weak soul not fortified in the Faith to actually fall into heresy, which would contradict the Church's mission to save souls and therefore the Church does not and can not bind such a person to assist at such Masses. Secondly it could for a person fortified in the Faith be an occasion for sins against charity towards one's neighbor and an occasion of serious spiritual pride. But these are prudential judgments to be made by the soul in question, preferably together with a sound confessor.
The second reason I would say is grave enough, is the possibility of scandal in the moral sense. If I make it look like something that is not virtuous to be virtuous, in this case by cooperation or silence, then I am causing confusion in others' consciences as to what is good and what is evil. Now, this is somewhat more elusive and requires even more careful judgment as to how one is perceived in the parish and so on.
So, that's my two cents.
In the Charity of Christ,
David
David,
DeleteAre you clergy or laity? I'm curious because I think most of here are laity. I am aware, as laity, our responsibility to know the catechism.
Your comments concern me for the following reasons. First, as laity, I'm unaware of any responsibility to know canon law. Second, I find it imprudent to offer this kind of spiritual direction on the internet or discouraging anyone from fulfilling their Sunday Obligation EVER. Third, no one who takes their responsibilities as a baptized Catholic seriously, who place their trust in Christ's promises given to us in His Church and frequent the Sacraments are at any risk PERIOD.
An Act of Faith
"O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine Person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; I believe that Thy Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen."
Dear Dismas,
DeleteI'm a layman. I'm not a canonist. However, to know some basics of canon law is probably quite good. Such as, when fasting is mandatory or when you are mandated to assist at Mass.
As to your second comment, I did not offer any sort of spiritual direction to anyone. I made nuances of the question and stated some general principles which are indeed quite Catholic. The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Burke, has even said that going to Mass in some places might make people lose their Faith. In such a case you are indeed obliged to not go to such a Mass, since preserving the gift of Faith is more important than fulfilling the precept of Holy Days. Now, these are extreme measures and as I said should be decided together with a prudent confessor if that is at all possible. Do you deny that a person who has a two hour drive one way to the nearest Mass is not obliged to fulfill his Sunday obligation, especially if he has a family to take care of?
As to your third point, I would say that is a highly presumptuous attitude. To place oneself in occasions of sin on the idea that one is "strong enough" to resist is in itself quite a dangerous notion. Now, how do you know that you take your responsibilities as a baptized Catholic seriously enough, that you trust in Christ's promises enough to withstand each and every temptation against Faith? "Watch and pray, that you might not fall into temptation."
In Christ,
David
To offer some sort of correction for what might have been misunderstood. When I wrote in my original comment "In the case mentioned," I did not intend to give specific direction regarding the situation mentioned in the original post, nor in anyway to give direction to The Idler. That would indeed be most imprudent. What I meant to convey was rather something along the lines of "in cases where Mass is offered irreverently to the degree of doubtful legality and validity or where the preaching is highly unorthodox". I do think this is evident in the paragraphs after, but for the sake of clarity.
DeleteDavid
David,
DeletePerhaps citing the appropriate passages from the catechism that support whatever point or distinctions you're trying to make regarding Mass attendence and Communion would clear things up for us?
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Dear Dismas,
DeleteThe point I have been trying to make is that Mass attendance is not the highest law of the Church, but rather the salvation of souls. Now if attending Mass would hinder your salvation by making you lose your Faith (and without Faith we cannot please God), then it follows from common sense and basic principles that you are not obliged to assist at such a Mass. I fail to see how this is controversial. As I said, I am stating principles, not judging individual cases which is a matter for the soul and his confessor.
Here are some references from the CCC which seem pertinent to the question:
Paragraphs 161-2, 2181, 1815, 846, 1868, 2088-9.
Regarding occasions of sin, it seems hard to find anything about it in the CCC in a short time, so I will give you some references from Saint Pius X's catechism, which you can find here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm
Under the Lord's Prayer, q. 32, Under The Sacrament of Penance, q. 27, 64, 67-9.
I think that should suffice. If you have any objections to my reasoning then I should very much like to hear it.
In the Precious Blood,
David
David,
DeleteI have to disagree, I hear no truth in what you say. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Church and Worship.
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [John 6:54]
I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138
1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139
1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140
Dear Dismas,
DeleteYou fail to address my reasoning. I do not deny the necessity for people above the age of reason to assist at Mass and receive Holy Communion. Nor do I deny that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the source and summit of the Christian life.
It's simple really. If you lose your Faith you will not want to or will not be able to assist at Mass in the future. Which is more important: your ability to assist at Mass or assisting at a specific Mass? And if you lose Charity, you will not be able to receive Holy Communion fruitfully. Now which is more important: your ability to receive Holy Communion fruitfully or receiving Holy Communion at a specific location and a specific time?
Objecting to this seems to me to be somewhat incomprehensible. Would you actually claim that it is obligatory to assist at a Mass wherein you seriously risk losing your Faith, your eternal salvation and are squarely set on the path to Hell without even the possibility of going to Confession before receiving the grace of Faith again?
If you want to argue that such Masses do not actually exist for anyone in the world, then you are free to do so, even though I would contend that. I do not think you are at liberty to deny the principle though.
In the Precious Blood,
David
David,
DeleteYour reasoning is foreign to me. I have already admitted that I hear no truth, that I do not hear Jesus' voice in what you say.
As long as I am true to my baptismal vows, truly seek God with my whole heart, whole mind and whole soul, assent to the teachings of the Magisterium of our Church, am loyal to our Holy Father, faithful to prayer and the sacraments I am at no risk or danger of losing the gift of faith granted me, through the Precious Blood of our Saviour, regardless of what Mass within our Church I attend or what priest presides.
I may, on the other hand, be at great risk if I was to seperate myself from my Church and out of disobedience and pride follow the strange teachings of some other sect irregular from the Magisterium of our Church.
Our Church being comprised of myself,an imperfect and sinning member, along with many others is, of course, imperfect. However, what it teaches and the sacramental grace it provides is not. Jesus gave our Church the keys and not you, I or any other of it's members can prevail against it or rob me of it's gifts.
In His Church,
Dismas.
Dear Dismas,
DeleteI must say I am quite dismayed by the tone which you strike in your comments to me. To me they sound quite harsh in such a discussion as we are having, which I would have hoped could have been calm and charitable. I had already resolved that this was to be my last comment, since we do not seem to get anywhere or find any common ground. The fact that you once again do not address the principle laid down but discuss other things which are only peripheral to the point only strengthens me in my resolution. This is the parting of ways.
There were a few things that I wanted to clear up though. Your last two paragraphs seems to insinuate that I have separated myself from the Church and am disobedient, proud and following the strange teachings of some sect. If that was not your intent, then let those who might have misunderstood you as well read my assurances.
I can assure you that I am in good canonical standing with the Church and my diocesan Bishop and have never attended a canonically irregular Mass or frequented doubtful Sacraments – even though the irregularity of Mass does not necessarily make it sinful to attend, something which even Canon Law, in its wisdom, opens up for. As for pride, that is indeed something that comes up now and again in the Confessional, something I struggle with to overcome, and last time I also confessed a sin of disobedience though indeed not towards the Church or Her authentic Magisterium. I am committed to filial charity and respect towards the Holy Father and pray for him daily, as I do for my parish priest and my Bishop. I go to Mass in my local parish, mainly Novus Ordo, on all Sundays and Holy Days and try to go sometime during the week as well. Please pray for me in your charity, that I may do the Will of the Lord in all my undertakings and that I shall conquer my pride and my passions.
I stand by the principle I laid down. Faith is more important than attending a particular Mass and if a Mass would scandalize you into losing the Faith – something that has in fact happened to many people – then it is better not to attend. That does not free you from doing what you can to honor the Lord's day and to offer Him the adoration that you are capable of. And remember, that though you say that you could not lose your faith and are not in any danger under your current circumstances, there might be other people who are struggling very hard and which might some day be in need of your charity. I beg you, do not be too legalistic if that day comes. Refer them instead to a prudent confessor. For the sake of their salvation.
In the Charity of Christ,
David
With all sincerity and in all humility, please be confident of my prayers.
DeletePax et bonum,
Dismas.
I have good news for you. These kinds of parishes are doomed. Jesus has already triumphed. They will become more militant in their defense of modernism and false liturgy, but it is only because they know the end is near.
ReplyDeleteThey are defeated and they know it.
Pray, stand up and fight!
I had the same problem, but finally I find the solution to find the right parish wherever I go: I am a priest!.
ReplyDeleteThis right here is why I pray every day for vocations - it is so important that we not only grow the amount of priests and religious that we have in the world, but that we have priests that constantly strive for sanctity and to please the good God in all that they do. God bless you, Father.
DeleteGood, good post. There is a related issue: avoiding Masses celebrated by "that priest." You know, the one who adds his own stylings to the Eucharistic prayer, or who reads his homilies from a prepared book of them, apparently written in the 1970's by their style. Who thinks he's both side-splittingly hilarious AND witty at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI do try and avoid his Masses but I sometimes cannot; when I am a scheduled lecter, for example. Then I am reminded that I come to Mass for Him, as you say.
I look at my lackluster parish and grit my teeth and think "Bloom where you're planted. Wait it out."
Dear Idler,
ReplyDeleteAnother comment regarding one of your last paragraphs. Did Jansenism really entail the denial of the "ex opere operato"? Wasn't it rather the Donatists from the time of St. Augustine that denied that principle?
Jansenism was more of a heresy regarding grace, quite similar to Calvinism: denying the possibility of resisting grace, denying the universal redemption of Christ on the Cross et c. It was followed by moral rigorism and the revelations of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary are much in response to the Jansenists.
Just a short note.
In the Precious Blood,
David
Thank you so much for writing this post. When I'm home from school, I regularly go to "that parish". Although your experience was far worse than mine typically is, this was a helpful reminder that as long as the Mass is valid, giving up our particular preferences (solemn music, a good homily, less than ten EMHCs) is a cross that we have to bear sometimes for the good of our souls. I also find that going to "that parish" makes me appreciate going to a more orthodox one, or coming back to school, which is more orthodox than most churches back home.
ReplyDeleteBeen there done that. But if the priest changed the words of consecration; it is not valid. Not only illicit but invalid.
ReplyDeleteThere comes a time when one can no longer endure the sacrilege if one recognizes it and most don't. I tried ear plugs and then began to pray with an English/Latin missal and so began to long for the extraordinary form of the Mass-one with total reverence and no funny business.
Some of my friends went protestant, some to Greek Orthodox, some drove miles to a schismatic Mass, and some just dropped out when they could not endure. I moved away. The cost was high. But I am in a parish now with 2 daily Masses and 11 confession times a week. Next week our new parochial vicar will offer the first TLM in probably over 40 years at my parish. I can worship in peace!
I understand the merit of enduring the blasphemous Masses as there was mockery at Calvary too. But after a time your own soul starts to wither and to be angry and upset at Mass all the time is not beneficial.
I left my home parish and town. I am glad I did.
That puts it in a nutshell. One can survive a Mass like this if it is once in a blue moon, but not as a regular feature of one's life. Psychologically one has to take the liturgy as a whole: one cannot accept some parts and reject others and keep one's tranquillity and sanity intact. Hence a Mass that puts an individual into such a frame of mind that he/she cannot receive Communion is objectively a real problem.
DeleteThere are two arguments for why one should go to such a Mass anyway, presuming it is the only one within reach and the day is Sunday:
a) the Church obliges Mass attendance on Sunday
b) the Mass is valid and Christ is present in the Sacred Species.
Taking a closer look at these arguments:
a) the obligation of Sunday attendance applies to the Mass as celebrated according to the mind of the Church; the legislator did not have any other Mass in view when creating the law. As a corollary to this, Church law cannot predict every circumstance: situations can arise that are not catered for. The Church recognises this and lays down a set of principles to determine whether such a law applies in such a case or not. One principle is that no law, in its application, may cause spiritual harm to the individual concerned. If a certain circumstance makes a law noxious, then the law does not apply.
b) that, by itself, is no reason to attend a Mass. Christ is present in the Greek Orthodox Masses, and he is treated there with a good deal more reverence that in some regular parish Masses. Doesn't matter - one can't go to them.
The bottom line seems to be that these kind of Masses are in the minority. The average Catholic can see them for what they are and, at a certain inconvenience to himself, go somewhere else for an acceptable regular Sunday Mass. The Church is still taking care of her children.
Go to the Bishops, yes write letters but also go to Jesus Himself in the Blessed Sacrament, Pour your heart out to Him at the moment of the consecration of the Eucharist during Mass. Jesus knows of these abuses and HE is listening. Don't give up.
ReplyDelete