HE FIRST PRIEST I ever worked for—immediately after college—was severely mentally ill. He was ordained by the Legionaries of Christ, but later worked for the diocese. (He concealed his illness from the parish.) This priest would insist upon having “business meetings” with me thrice weekly, and it wasn’t unusual for such meetings to last more than five hours. The meetings never dealt with any actual business. Instead, my boss just talked: explaining his political views; describing his desire that I come live with him (!) in the rectory; insisting these meetings happen at “special places” (like the beach or his friend’s private swimming pool); refusing to hand over my paycheck unless I spent time with him; trying to give me financial “gifts” under the table and becoming furious when I refused; describing what he plans on doing once he’s made a bishop; repeating in vivid detail the same (enormously lengthy) stories over and over; and so forth. My boss did not speak to me; he spoke at me. He continuously insisted I must “never answer my cell phone on my day off.” Yet he’d constantly call me on my day off. If I didn’t pick up, he’d keep calling. When that didn’t work, he’d call from phones belonging to other parish employees. Once, this priest traveled to the home of the mother of my girlfriend at the time, using her phone to try and reach me.
(1 of 3) Jeff’s Point • The point is, some people don’t act rationally—and we must come to grips with this. Readers have probably noticed I often mention this point vis-à-vis church legislation (e.g. the 20 November 2012 ruling by the USCCB). Certain musicians and priests believe erroneous things about sacred music legislation. You can show them all the documentation in the world and explain matters until you’re blue in the face. Nothing will change their mind about certain things. Indeed, I emphasized this in one of my recent articles.
(2 of 3) Jeff’s Point • It is a fact—whether we like it or not—that the Ordinary Form allows incredible freedom. In a derogatory way, this is sometimes referred to as “option-itis.” The question is not whether we believe this should be the case. After all, I wasn’t alive during the 1970s. Nobody asked for my opinion. I personally would have argued against having so many options, and the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship said the same thing a few years ago.
(3 of 3) Jeff’s Point • Some people don’t believe that “Seasonal” (ad libitum) options exist. But they do exist. If you want to see how the “seasonal” options for GOSPEL ACCLAMATION appear in the official books, click here:
* PDF Download • GOSPEL ACCLAMATION (ad libitum)
—This options can be used as the Gospel Acclamation at any time.
The various options given here by the official 1970 Missal (in Latin) can be used during the week or on Sundays ad libitum. Some priests insist there’s no such thing as a “seasonal” GOSPEL ACCLAMATION. When they tell you this, just smile politely and respond: “Okay, Father.” Trying to persuade them will get you nowhere.
Those Who Doubt • I could easily cite tons more permissions which certain people pretend don’t exist—but they do exist. For example, the post-conciliar plainsong books clearly say:
In omnibus Missis de Tempore eligi potest pro opportunitate, loco cuiusvis cantus diei proprii, alius ex eodem tempore.
Translated into English, that means:
“At all seasonal Masses, to replace any chant proper to the day, another from the same season can be selected for the sake of convenience.”
Indeed, some very intelligent priests interpret that sentence to mean that an INTROIT could technically replace a TRACT; an OFFERTORY could technically replace a GRADUAL; and so forth. [Again, I’m not advocating any of this. Nobody asked me what I thought when they were formulating all these permissions.] Similar permissions are given for the Ordinary Form SANCTORALE section. And don’t even get me started on the GRADUALE SIMPLEX, or the “optional” Communion antiphons, or the lie about eliminating Neo-Gregorian Chants, or the 20 November 2012 ruling by the USCCB. I hope to discuss this whole “option-itis” situation in a future article.
