I am very proud to be Roman Catholic.

As I have stated in other threads, I have been exposed to a variety of denominations and have seen many good things. However, I do believe for a variety of reasons that the fullness of faith is within the Church.

I'm saddened and somewhat confused at why people get so upset when a priest varies from the "orthodox" liturgy.

If there is no heresy, schism or intent to do any harm, why not find the good in each of the masses.

Each mass whether a "vigil", "early mass" or "afternoon" mass, all have variations. Each mass seems to take on it's own personality and to me it's refreshing to see differences.

Some of you would pass smooth out at a LIFE TEEN or healing mass at a Charismatic Center.

My thought -- enjoy the worship...even David danced. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jjplacette@catholic.org), January 02, 2003

Answers

why not find the good in each of the masses

I think each of us already does that, even if not consciously.

Some of you would pass smooth out at a LIFE TEEN or healing mass at a Charismatic Center.

I take it you mean "pass out" in a bad way, and not as a reference to what happens in Charismatic circles when someone speaking in strange tongues comes dancing up & taps you on the forehead? :)

My thought -- enjoy the worship...even David danced

For most, I think maybe "enjoyment" comes from doing what we believe God wants us to do, not from whatever personal consolation we may or may not experience. I can thoroughly enjoy and be exceedingly stirred by an almost totally silent Mass in a dark, tiny chapel with just a handful of people in attendance.

"Enjoyment" does not have to be expressed through outward expressions of joy, as it happened with David. I'm not looking for a fight, just putting a different spin on your original comment.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), January 02, 2003.

I understand your point, John, but the Catholic Church does have certain rules about how the Mass is to be offered, and no one, not even a priest, has the right to violate those rules. Certainly there are legitimate variations, but the key word there is "legitimate" - the Church has given approval for their use.

You and I, as members of the Catholic Church, have a *right* to hear the Mass in the way that the Church wants to give it to us. The priest is the go-between, the messenger. It isn't fair for him to deny us the fullness of the message - that would be like the Post Office rewriting your Aunt Emily's postcards from her trip to Mexico! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 02, 2003.

My point,without spin is: If one is following Canon Law in an effort to do good, so be it. But, there is a thin line between following the law to do good and becoming "phariseeical" about the law. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 02, 2003.

Please, let me add one thing: There are times when I love being alone in a dark chapel in silent prayer. But, I also love "praise and worship". I believe both are appropriate. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 02, 2003.

Well, John, we must agree to disagree. But I hope you will at least think about my comments. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 02, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, John P. You wrote:
"There are times when I love being alone in a dark chapel in silent prayer. But, I also love 'praise and worship.' I believe both are appropriate."

I do too. But part of the power to "bind and loose" that Jesus gave to St. Peter and his successors included the duty to regulate just how we "praise and worship." It is for good reasons, not "pharisaical" ones, that Pope John Paul II takes this duty very seriously. [The Church deputes part of this duty to the conferences of bishops, who can approve certain variations, with the subsequent OK from the Vatican.]

Besides the fact that there are several different Catholic "rites" of Mass or "Divine Liturgy" (Western/Latin [old and new], Byzantine, Maronite, Chaldean, Melkite, etc.), some of these can be celebrated in multiple languages. Then, as Christine said, there are "legitimate variations" built into the rubrics and instructions, even before the bishops' conferences optionally take further action. There are probably more permissible variations, John, than you are aware of, because some are ignored by parish priests.

[continued below]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

But, having said all that about variations, we have to realize that there is a basic form from which the priest and congregation cannot stray -- lest any irreverence, heresy, or other serious disturbance be allowed to enter in. Maybe it would help you to read the following words of the Vatican, from a papally approved, 1980 instruction on the Mass. [Note that these 22-year-old words are still applicable, and they put a lie to the contention that the Church has not shown concern about liturgical abuses that have been perpetrated in some parts of the world in the new rite of Mass.]

"This [Vatican office] notes with great joy the many positive results of the liturgical reform: a more active and conscious participation by the faithful in the liturgical mysteries, doctrinal and catechetical enrichment through the use of the vernacular, the wealth of [new] readings from the Bible, a growth in the community sense of liturgical life, [etc.]

[continued below]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

"But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world:
the confusion of roles, especially regardingthe priestly ministry and the role of the laity (... shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while the priests refrain from doing so);
an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.);
misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends).
In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic Liturgy: 'One who offers worship to God on the Church's behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification.' (St. Thomas Aquinas ...)
[continued below]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

"None of these things can bring good results. The consequences are -- and cannot fail to be -- the impairing of the unity of faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of intense reactions.

"The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes, and creativity bewilder the faithful. The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi [law of praying] and the lex credendi [law of believing]. The Second Vatican Council's admonition in this regard must be remembered: 'No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.' And Paul VI of venerable memory stated that: 'Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense.'"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

John,
You've made an excellent contribution here. It gives me pleasure to offer my sincere support once more.

Only a day or so back, I was at a loss for words to express much the same faith in this Pope and our Magisterium. Some would deny the obvious truth that a man of John Paul II's holiness and erudition is never in danger of misleading the faithful, least of all where the infinite value of the Mass is in question. Just as Paul VI so ably knew what the Holy Spirit's intent was, John Paul II has to know. Those who doubt in him and lay blame on his papacy are plainly influenced by the devil.

That may be pretty strong, I know. But after all; who foments unreasoning doubt, muddled faith, and complete departure from the apostolic truth? --Only Satan. You don't have to become a willing tool of Satan to fall into his many snares. Thanks for posting, John.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 03, 2003.

I appreciate those words very much, Gene.
I hope that my message affects the heart of at least one of our visitors who have been so badly misled.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.