I'm not commenting on the Mass.
.
Nope. The calendar has been tampered with. ;)
.
But anyway. At my parish Father likes to catechise before the canon - he kind of makes up his own prayer focusing the attention of the assembly upon the offertory prayer - what it means etc. Like, "So, we gather our offerings, our prayers, our desires and join them to the offering of the bread and wine that will become the soul and divinity... Blessed are you Lord, etc." Something like that. I find it distracting, especially when he messes it up. You see, lately he neglects to include "body and blood" - he used to say it all of the time - but now it's gone. So I wonder - does he think "body and blood" is too gross so he just says, "soul and divinity"? As catholics we should know the Eucharist really and truly is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ - not just the "soul and divinity". Anyway - I felt Father was not just creating a distraction - it was bad catechetics.
.
Sometimes I just don't get it. For instance, last week a very good priest in the U.K. was worried about Orthodox theology regarding the composition of an icon in a Roman Catholic church, and today my parish priest can't seem to get his Eucharistic theology together.
.
Why should I let it bother me? I don't know - probably because I blog. And last evening I was cranky I suppose, a bit frustrated you might say, when I wrote about it, I apologise. I wrote the following:
.
"Priests - please don't add to the liturgy -
say the black - do the red - just as Fr. Z says.
I know - but he is right about that." I suggested priests should do as they are trained to do - just like the rest of us are supposed to do what we are told. That was inappropriate and inconsiderate, and definitely disrespectful. I'm so sorry. Thankfully
Adoro came along and corrected me, explaining that the GIRM most certainly allows for the celebrant to catechise and/or explain things during the celebration of Mass. I searched and found the text she was referring to:
.
31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal. - GIRM
.
I stand corrected. Unfortunately, I had included a couple of other complaints in the post; in defense of Saturday vigil Masses and Communion in the hand - things approved by the USCCB - proving I was in a mood and lacked meekness and humility. Again, I apologize. Seriously, I am just thankful to be able to attend Mass, make my confession, receive Communion, and so on - I'm grateful for our priests and will redouble my prayers for all.
.
Misinterpretations, errors, misunderstandings, misinformed...
.
That said - the post became an occasion for me to reflect upon blogs and blogging - Catholic ones in particular - mine as well as others. In the past I have often warned against depending upon blogs for Catholic doctrine and teaching. We must be careful, just as much as one is careful about authors, books, speakers, teachers, and some priests. In various diocese the local ordinary has the right to allow or disallow speakers or teachers to come into their diocese and conduct seminars or speaking engagements in Catholic parishes or institutions for Catholics. Nevertheless, they have no such control over public forums such as the blogosphere. Nor do we who propose to speak as Catholics about Catholic subjects.
.
If I was wrong about my priest's right to catechise at certain points within the Mass, what else might I be wrong about? If I misinterpreted Fr. Z's famous saying, "Say the black, do the red" as meaning a priest ought not to include a teaching moment within the celebration of Liturgy, how much more can what we say as Catholics be misconstrued by non-Catholics or new Catholics?
.
I recall how a few years ago one blogger wrote, "Gossip is a mortal sin". (Wow! I freaked!) But you see, that is not true. There are different forms and degrees of gossip, and there is pretty strict criteria for committing a mortal sin. Three things are necessary for a sin to be mortal: a) Serious, or grave matter; b) full knowledge or conviction the act is seriously wrong before commission of the act; c) Full consent of the will. All three conditions must exist simultaneously for a sin to be mortal.
.
Recently one blogger wrote extensively, albeit mistakenly, concerning her understanding of an area of mystical theology, defending her position as being in accord with what she had been taught in her theology classes by her professor who happened to be a priest. As we know from my post just 2 or 3 days ago, errors can be taught - and often are - even in the most prestigious Catholic Universities. (I'm referring to the
De Cock endorsement of homosexual love in his thesis at Louvain in Belgium.)
.
So what do we do? I'm just saying, be careful who you read, what you read, check facts - especially if you intend to write about Catholic teaching, faith and morals, and so on. There is only one Magisterium and it isn't the blogosphere.
.
I will continue to be very careful and not such a
know-it-all in the future, and I hope you readers will be discerning too. Please correct me any time - "If a good man reproves me, it is kindness!" - Psalm 141
