10 Most Common Liturgical Abuses

[FrDavid96]

Well, I* thought* that you did, too, that is until your post # 35 then it became a little confusing because I thought we were talking about a specific directive. It seemed that you were trying to say that if we knew the bishop was actly illicily by giving the directive to remain standing after the Agnus Dei that we did not need to obey. I was just wondering how we could possibly know what his reasons were if we were not told.

If the Holy See says that the bishop can issue directives for a particular moment in the Mass, then the bishop has that authority and it’s legitimate. The Holy See also says that the celebrant can determine which of the provided forms of the Penitential Rite to use–so the priest would be exercising legitimate authority here as well (again, just to give an example). The point I was carefully trying to make is that when Rome says that something is to be done, or nothing is to be added, then that means just what it says.

I didn’t say that the bishop can’t issue directives for posture after the Agnus Dei (I re-read the posts, and I do think I was pretty clear on that). Here’s what I did say:
Someone who has no authority to make changes to the Mass likewise has no authority to either require or even so much as suggest that others make illicit changes to the Mass. If the directives are licit, then they should be obeyed. When directives are illicit, they should not be obeyed–because it is never morally right (and indeed is is always morally wrong) to disobey a higher authority who is competent to give a law (in this case, the Holy See) in favor of a lesser authority who is not competent to change that law, and indeed owes obedience to the higher authority.
And to keep that in context, only a few sentences back in the same post, I did say “So the local bishop does indeed have the authority to require a certain posture at this moment in the Mass because Rome has given him the authority to do this.”

I was making a clear contrast between legitimate authority and not-legitimate authority.

Or was it that you were trying to guess my motive for my question and you were trying to cover all the bases with what you thought that I may be thinking?

Not necessarily your motivation, but it wasn’t hard to read the tea leaves and see that sooner rather than later someone would jump at the chance to misconstrue what I was saying. After all, check the title of the thread!

 

[FrDavid96]

Didn’t you mean standing?

No, I thought you were asking about kneeling.

 

[zab]

If the Holy See says that the bishop can issue directives for a particular moment in the Mass, then the bishop has that authority and it’s legitimate. The Holy See also says that the celebrant can determine which of the provided forms of the Penitential Rite to use–so the priest would be exercising legitimate authority here as well (again, just to give an example). The point I was carefully trying to make is that when Rome says that something is to be done, or nothing is to be added, then that means just what it says.

I didn’t say that the bishop can’t issue directives for posture after the Agnus Dei (I re-read the posts, and I do think I was pretty clear on that). Here’s what I did say:
Someone who has no authority to make changes to the Mass likewise has no authority to either require or even so much as suggest that others make illicit changes to the Mass. If the directives are licit, then they should be obeyed. When directives are illicit, they should not be obeyed–because it is never morally right (and indeed is is always morally wrong) to disobey a higher authority who is competent to give a law (in this case, the Holy See) in favor of a lesser authority who is not competent to change that law, and indeed owes obedience to the higher authority.
And to keep that in context, only a few sentences back in the same post, I did say “So the local bishop does indeed have the authority to require a certain posture at this moment in the Mass because Rome has given him the authority to do this.”

I was making a clear contrast between legitimate authority and not-legitimate authority.

Not necessarily your motivation, but it wasn’t hard to read the tea leaves and see that sooner rather than later someone would jump at the chance to misconstrue what I was saying. After all, check the title of the thread!

I just don’t know what to say. You have misinterpreted my posts and you are the one who jumped “at the chance to misconstrue what I was saying.”

 

[FrDavid96]

I just don’t know what to say. You have misinterpreted my posts and you are the one who jumped “at the chance to misconstrue what I was saying.”

I’m sorry but I’m sincerely confused. Actually, I’ve been confused for a while now because I’ve been repeating the same thing in different ways. I don’t understand how I caused any offense. Honestly, I don’t see it, and I assure you I didn’t intend it.

I didn’t jump at any chance. You asked me a question, and I gave you an honest answer. I felt that someone (not you) would jump on what I was saying.

Please, please explain what you mean. I am completely confused here.

 

[diggerdomer]

I would like to call readers’ attention to an article right here on Catholic.com The title is “The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses and Why They’re Wrong.” By Kevin Orlin Johnson. It appeared originally in the January 1999 issue of the magazine “This Rock” published by Catholic Answers–the same Catholic Answers that sponsors these forums (and a thanks go out to them for their good work, by the way!)

It’s a very good read, and I highly recommend the article.

Here’s the link

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

Maybe I should start a new thread, but I just came across what I think is a similar list. This one is 14 things to improve the liturgy (which I kind of like…a positive spin, if you will, rather than starting off with “abuses” which I think lends itself to negative spins sometimes).

Anyway, if it fits and folks are interested in furthering what I thought was a good discussion of the list posted by FrDavid96, here it is:

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6704&Itemid=48

As a disclaimer, I don’t know anything about this website or organization.

For what it’s worth, I tend to disagree with 9 and 12. Some of the others I strongly agree with.

 

[passus]

Maybe I should start a new thread, but I just came across what I think is a similar list. This one is 14 things to improve the liturgy (which I kind of like…a positive spin, if you will, rather than starting off with “abuses” which I think lends itself to negative spins sometimes).

Anyway, if it fits and folks are interested in furthering what I thought was a good discussion of the list posted by FrDavid96, here it is:

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6704&Itemid=48

As a disclaimer, I don’t know anything about this website or organization.

For what it’s worth, I tend to disagree with 9 and 12. Some of the others I strongly agree with.

We have a discussion on this article already going.

14 Steps to Liturgical Recovery article

 

[zab]

I’m sorry but I’m sincerely confused. Actually, I’ve been confused for a while now because I’ve been repeating the same thing in different ways. I don’t understand how I caused any offense. Honestly, I don’t see it, and I assure you I didn’t intend it.

I didn’t jump at any chance. You asked me a question, and I gave you an honest answer. I felt that someone (not you) would jump on what I was saying.

Please, please explain what you mean. I am completely confused here.

Is wasn’t hard to read the tea leaves? What did you mean by that?

 

[FrDavid96]

Is wasn’t hard to read the tea leaves? What did you mean by that?

What I meant was that sooner or later someone would take my words about the bishop having the authority to define the posture for after the Agnus Dei, and/or take my comments about the fact that we should obey those who exercise legitimate authority and expand upon that in a way that would seem to support local pastors calling for illicit changes to the Mass. People have made such arguments on other threads, and I anticipated the possibility that someone would try to use my words to justify obedience to a pastor who disregards the liturgical norms on the pretense of obedience.

When I said “read the tea leaves” I did not mean to imply that you were the one turning over the cup. If I did, I wouldn’t have ended my response to you with a smiley-face. In fact, your question did surprise me because at first I thought you were the one telling me that such was your motivation. As I said, I’m just plain confused here.

 

[zab]

I’m sorry but I’m sincerely confused. Actually, I’ve been confused for a while now because I’ve been repeating the same thing in different ways. I don’t understand how I caused any offense. Honestly, I don’t see it, and I assure you I didn’t intend it.

I didn’t jump at any chance. You asked me a question, and I gave you an honest answer. I felt that someone (not you) would jump on what I was saying.

Please, please explain what you mean. I am completely confused here.

I asked you a simple question, but you did not give a simple answer to the question that I asked. You have to make the point about licit and illicit authority. * You said, I didn’t say that the bishop can’t issue directives for posture after the Agnus Dei" *I never said or even implied that you did say that. You keep trying to make a defense when none is necessary. Then you agree with a post, but twist my words and for what reason? I honestly thought you meant to say “standing” because you were reply to what I had written. And then the remark about reading the tea leaves. I don’t understand what you were trying to say if it wasn’t directed towards me.

 

[diggerdomer]

We have a discussion on this article already going.

14 Steps to Liturgical Recovery article

Thanks!

 

[zab]

What I meant was that sooner or later someone would take my words about the bishop having the authority to define the posture for after the Agnus Dei, and/or take my comments about the fact that we should obey those who exercise legitimate authority and expand upon that in a way that would seem to support local pastors calling for illicit changes to the Mass. People have made such arguments on other threads, and I anticipated the possibility that someone would try to use my words to justify obedience to a pastor who disregards the liturgical norms on the pretense of obedience.

When I said “read the tea leaves” I did not mean to imply that you were the one turning over the cup. If I did, I wouldn’t have ended my response to you with a smiley-face. In fact, your question did surprise me because at first I thought you were the one telling me that such was your motivation. As I said, I’m just plain confused here.

Being that I am one of those persons whose posts you have misunderstood in other threads, I cringe when you start anticipating a problem when there is none.

 

[FrDavid96]

I asked you a simple question, but you did not give a simple answer to the question that I asked. You have to make the point about licit and illicit authority. * You said, I didn’t say that the bishop can’t issue directives for posture after the Agnus Dei" *I never said or even implied that you did say that. You keep trying to make a defense when none is necessary. Then you agree with a post, but twist my words and for what reason? I honestly thought you meant to say “standing” because you were reply to what I had written. And then the remark about reading the tea leaves. I don’t understand what you were trying to say if it wasn’t directed towards me.

Zab,

I was merely trying to answer your questions. Nothing more (other than not setting myself up for someone else to use the words in other ways).

Here’s what you wrote:

But I am speaking of a specific directive- that the people are to kneel after the Agnus Dei “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” How are we, to know that the bishop is acting illicitly in this case? Do we not owe our bishop the same respect, not to accuse him of acting illicitly when he has been given the authority to rule otherwise?

I merely clarified what I said in an effort to make it clear that I wasn’t saying that the bishop would be acting illicitly. When you asked “how are we to know that the bishop is acting illicitly?” Naturally I thought that you thought I was saying that such a directive would be illicit. How else could one interpret your question?

With regard to the standing/kneeling: I simply misread your original question. I thought you were asking me about kneeling, and so I responded about kneeling. When you asked me about my response (“Didn’t you mean standing?”), I merely said that I thought you were asking about kneeling (“No, I thought you were asking about kneeling”)–in other words, in my second response, I explained that I had misunderstood you the first time. Since you didn’t follow up with that part, I simply thought you didn’t see any need to continue and decided to move on with the conversation.

Reading the tea leaves just means “telling the future” It doesn’t mean that I think you are trying to set-up that future.

I’ve been trying to answer the question which you’ve been asking me. I’m not trying to twist anything at all. Please believe me.

 

[japhy]

zab, in the US, a person is not to be considered disobedient if he kneels to receive Holy Communion (despite the norm of standing). However, in the US, a person would be considered disobedient if his bishop has determined that the posture after the Agnus Dei is standing but he kneels. The person should follow the legitimate liturgical authority of his bishop. The bishop is within his authority to establish standing as the posture for after the Agnus Dei, and the members of his diocese are obligated to obey such a legitimate exercise of the bishop’s authority.

 

[zab]

Zab,

I was merely trying to answer your questions. Nothing more (other than not setting myself up for someone else to use the words in other ways).

Here’s what you wrote:
But I am speaking of a specific directive- that the people are to kneel after the Agnus Dei “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” How are we, to know that the bishop is acting illicitly in this case? Do we not owe our bishop the same respect, not to accuse him of acting illicitly when he has been given the authority to rule otherwise?
I merely clarified what I said in an effort to make it clear that I wasn’t saying that the bishop would be acting illicitly. When you asked “how are we to know that the bishop is acting illicitly?” Naturally I thought that you thought I was saying that such a directive would be illicit. How else could one interpret your question?

With regard to the standing/kneeling: I simply misread your original question. I thought you were asking me about kneeling, and so I responded about kneeling. When you asked me about my response (“Didn’t you mean standing?”), I merely said that I thought you were asking about kneeling (“No, I thought you were asking about kneeling”)–in other words, in my second response, I explained that I had misunderstood you the first time. Since you didn’t follow up with that part, I simply thought you didn’t see any need to continue and decided to move on with the conversation.

Reading the tea leaves just means “telling the future” It doesn’t mean that I think you are trying to set-up that future.

I’ve been trying to answer the question which you’ve been asking me. I’m not trying to twist anything at all. Please believe me.

I don’t know why you thought that I thought that you thought what is in the bold print.

 

[zab]

zab, in the US, a person is not to be considered disobedient if he kneels to receive Holy Communion (despite the norm of standing). However, in the US, a person would be considered disobedient if his bishop has determined that the posture after the Agnus Dei is standing but he kneels. The person should follow the legitimate liturgical authority of his bishop. The bishop is within his authority to establish standing as the posture for after the Agnus Dei, and the members of his diocese are obligated to obey such a legitimate exercise of the bishop’s authority.

That makes sense to me. Still, I do not judge those who kneel. I am just grateful for my understanding of the importance of obedience even when things may seem awkward.

 

[zab]

Zab,

I was merely trying to answer your questions. Nothing more (other than not setting myself up for someone else to use the words in other ways).
The problem is, how am I to know that you are not “anticipating” what my future response will be.

Here’s what you wrote:
But I am speaking of a specific directive- that the people are to kneel after the Agnus Dei “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” How are we, to know that the bishop is acting illicitly in this case? Do we not owe our bishop the same respect, not to accuse him of acting illicitly when he has been given the authority to rule otherwise?
I merely clarified what I said in an effort to make it clear that I wasn’t saying that the bishop would be acting illicitly. When you asked “how are we to know that the bishop is acting illicitly?” Naturally I thought that you thought I was saying that such a directive would be illicit. How else could one interpret your question?
The CDWDS said that we are not to think that people who kneel to receive Communion are “acting illicitly”. I was just trying to say that we owe the same respect to our bishops by not assuming that they are acting illicitly if they rule that we should stand. I did not say or imply anything to accuse you of thinking otherwise.

With regard to the standing/kneeling: I simply misread your original question. I thought you were asking me about kneeling, and so I responded about kneeling. When you asked me about my response (“Didn’t you mean standing?”), I merely said that I thought you were asking about kneeling (“No, I thought you were asking about kneeling”)–in other words, in my second response, I explained that I had misunderstood you the first time. Sorry, I did misunderstand you here. If you were implying that you misunderstood the first time, I didn’t get it. Since you didn’t follow up with that part, I simply thought you didn’t see any need to continue and decided to move on with the conversation.

Reading the tea leaves just means “telling the future” It doesn’t mean that I think you are trying to set-up that future. I still don’t get this one.

I’ve been trying to answer the question which you’ve been asking me. I’m not trying to twist anything at all. Please believe me. I’ll try. Sometimes I wonder if you realize how much I do agree with you on almost everything. It hurts me when you think I think something other than what I think.

 

[Ignatius]

Rome granted recognition to a suggested adaptation by the USCCB under certain conditions. Here’s the quote from the CDWDS
“…this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.” Therefore Rome very specifically limited the bishop’s authority in this regard and for all practical purposes forbade either the conference of bishops or any individual bishop from requiring that communicants stand.

Catholics should follow the directives of their pastors in liturgical matters, but that does not in any way mitigate the fact that pastors (whether parochial or the shepherd of the diocese) are only acting with legitimate authority when they are implementing the liturgical norms of the Church. Someone who has no authority to make changes to the Mass likewise has no authority to either require or even so much as suggest that others make illicit changes to the Mass. If the directives are licit, then they should be obeyed. When directives are illicit, they should not be obeyed–because it is never morally right (and indeed is is always morally wrong) to disobey a higher authority who is competent to give a law (in this case, the Holy See) in favor of a lesser authority who is not competent to change that law, and indeed owes obedience to the higher authority.

Thank you, that was beautifully stated Fr. So, one who is disobedient to their higher authority cannot ligitimately demand obedience in those matters.

 

[Ignatius]

I asked you a simple question, but you did not give a simple answer to the question that I asked.

Hi zab. Actually, it’s pretty clear that you’ve forgotten what you posted. Here is the pertinent part, which father David was answering:

. . . . should this be treated the same as the reply from the CDWDS regarding people who kneel when receiveing Communion when the norm is to stand? Are they not to be regarded as doing anything in error?

Father David was addressing your statement that those who ligitimetely choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion are in error for disobeying the local ordinary. Father David explained, in a very cogent and erudite statement, that the local ordinary doesn’t have competence or authority to make such a directive as the Holy See has explicitely stated that kneeling for Holy Communion is not to be interfered with.

 

[Phemie]

Hi zab. Actually, it’s pretty clear that you’ve forgotten what you posted. Here is the pertinent part, which father David was answering:

Father David was addressing your statement that those who ligitimetely choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion are in error for disobeying the local ordinary. Father David explained, in a very cogent and erudite statement, that the local ordinary doesn’t have competence or authority to make such a directive as the Holy See has explicitely stated that kneeling for Holy Communion is not to be interfered with.

I don’t think zab made that statement at all.

Her question was whether the CDW’s notice that those who kneel to receive Communion are not to be considered disobedient could also apply to those who opt to kneel after the Agnus Dei when their bishop has said they are to stand.

Granted Fr.'s reply was clear: the bishops don’t have the authority to order you to stand for Communion but they have been given the authority to set what the posture after the Agnus Dei will be in their diocese.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;5605931:

Hi zab. Actually, it’s pretty clear that you’ve forgotten what you posted. Here is the pertinent part, which father David was answering:
zab;5600920:

. . . . should this be treated the same as the reply from the CDWDS regarding people who kneel when receiveing Communion when the norm is to stand? Are they not to be regarded as doing anything in error?

Father David was addressing your statement that those who ligitimetely choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion are in error for disobeying the local ordinary. Father David explained, in a very cogent and erudite statement, that the local ordinary doesn’t have competence or authority to make such a directive as the Holy See has explicitely stated that kneeling for Holy Communion is not to be interfered with.

I don’t think zab made that statement at all.

It’s zab’s all right, that’s why I posted the quote. It is wise always to post the quote because sometimes people remember what they wished they’d said instead of what they really said.

Just to remove any doubt, Here is her post again:

. . . . should this be treated the same as the reply from the CDWDS regarding people who kneel when receiveing Communion when the norm is to stand? Are they not to be regarded as doing anything in error?

Just click the “>” link in the quote and it’ll take you right to her post. The pertinent text is near the bottom of the post.