Abuses?

[Newbie2]

This topic is contentious from the get-go, but here goes:

1. On one end, we have folks who don’t mind variations in the liturgy in terms of music, instruments, holding hands, words used, etc.
2. On the other, we have folks who see any such things and scream “Abuse!”.
3. In the middle, there are those who can see a few minor variations, but also see limits to such changes.

There have been discussions ***ad nauseum *** on specific things such as hand holding, musical instruments, and it’s not my purpose to start yet another thread to discuss these specific things.

My intent is to discuss how we reconcile these positions.

Just so you know up front, I’m in the third catagory; sometimes it’s difficult for me to decide if I’m in favor of this or that, or if it borders on abuse. I feel pretty clear on the abuses. Again, this isn’t to discuss how I feel about it, but rather discuss how we reconcile the various positions.

 

[ethelzguy]

Very simple. Obedience.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I wish you the best of luck in reconciling various opinions on this board. My view is that, since most of us are Americans and Canadians, we tend to view the church as we do our government. Things can be right or left, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat.

In actuality, adherence to Church teachings, whether serious, central dogmas of the Faith or lesser items such as liturgical norms, is more a matter of in or out than “my opinion or yours.” As all cat owners know, a cat will want to go through a door, but when it is opened, he will stand in the opening trying to make up his mind. At some point the cat will cease being inside and will enter into the outside (sometimes with gentle podiatric encouragement). There comes a point when a Catholic who chooses to stand in the opening leading away from the Faith will have to either enter or depart, because if one stands in the doorway too long, he will be trampled.

The Church doesn’t represent opinion; she represents reality. Why fight the truth? As the hymn says, “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”

 

[Newbie2]

Very simple. Obedience.

To whom?

By this I mean if the Bishop is a catagory 3 as defined in the OP.

 

[FrDavid96]

Believe it or not, it’s quite simple. The Church, ultimately the Supreme Authority in the Church on earth, the Roman Pontiff, has been entrusted by the Holy Spirit with the stewardship of the Sacred Liturgy.

We can all express our opinions on what “should” be done at Mass. We can certainly express those opinions to our Bishops. We can request, and even bring about changes. This is a good thing.

But in the end, what it finally comes down to is that we must follow the Liturgical laws which the Church has established, whether we like them or not; whether the specifics might be labeled conservative or liberal or anything else.

Too many Catholics have forgotten those words of Vatican II in SC #22 “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.” That’s not negotiable; it’s not ambiguous; and it’s certainly not optional. Anyone who makes changes to the Liturgy on his own authority is wrong.

There are many options in the licit celebration of the Mass. We may all have our own personal preferences on how these options should be exercised. We may not like certain things that we see in the liturgical norms of the Church; but that does not give us the authority to change them.

The original post suggested a discussion on how we reconcile these differences. We don’t. The “value” of individuals taking it upon themselves to alter the Mass is not a value at all, it is a form of deceit. Licit celebration of the Liturgy does not have to reconcile itself to illicit acts.

Those who want changes to the Liturgy should content themselves to writings, discussion, communication and above all prayerful discernment. Change is not only possible, it is both desireable and inevitable. But it must always be legitimate.

Those who oppose changes should likewise be willing to accept the authority of the Church; and that means accepting legitimate changes, and/or allowing others the liberty of embracing legitimate changes.

Simply put, if we are following the Liturgical norms of the Church (regardless of what form they may take) we are in the right; if we take it upon ourselves to change or reject that which we have no authority to change or reject, we are in the wrong.

 

[Chuy]

This topic is contentious from the get-go, but here goes:

1. On one end, we have folks who don’t mind variations in the liturgy in terms of music, instruments, holding hands, words used, etc.
2. On the other, we have folks who see any such things and scream “Abuse!”.
3. In the middle, there are those who can see a few minor variations, but also see limits to such changes.

There have been discussions ***ad nauseum *** on specific things such as hand holding, musical instruments, and it’s not my purpose to start yet another thread to discuss these specific things.

My intent is to discuss how we reconcile these positions.

Just so you know up front, I’m in the third catagory; sometimes it’s difficult for me to decide if I’m in favor of this or that, or if it borders on abuse. I feel pretty clear on the abuses. Again, this isn’t to discuss how I feel about it, but rather discuss how we reconcile the various positions.

Good posting…

I think for those who continually complain about “liturgical abuses” a good place to begin is understanding not only what a true abuse is, but also where the Church places the authority for different things. There are some world-class GIRM/RS/CofC cut and paste people out there who clearly have no clue about how the Church operates and what the different documents actually define and what they do not.

I think a second thing many can do is choose their parish as carefully as they can. No sense in attending a parish where problematic people are in charge. It’s going to lead to frustration and anger in many cases. Once you have carefully chosen a parish, stick with it and forget about the problems at other churches.

Once you have found a place of worship, GET INVOLVED. That might not be an easy thing to do. You might well get blocked from getting involved, it might be tough to be the only dissenting voice in some of the bad decisions that are made but pray for strength and stick it out. Too many cut and run to bunker mentality parishes and that is a problem in itself.

Get to know your pastor. When was the last time you quietly invited him out/over on Sunday night for a steak and a beer?

Realize that the Church is made-up of humans and that we are a fallen people. When abuses and irregularities do occur, pray for patience and the resolve to do something about it.

Realize that if you harbor anger at what you deem to be “abuses” that the problem is typically (but not always) with you, not the “abusers.”

Realize that until one has a “good” bishop and pastor that it can indeed be a tough road. I have been on that tough road for a lot of years and I have the scars to prove it. It wasn’t until we received a great bishop and a wonderful pastor that things “magically” began to improve. Dramatically improve…

 

[Chuy]

Believe it or not, it’s quite simple. The Church, ultimately the Supreme Authority in the Church on earth, the Roman Pontiff, has been entrusted by the Holy Spirit with the stewardship of the Sacred Liturgy.

We can all express our opinions on what “should” be done at Mass. We can certainly express those opinions to our Bishops. We can request, and even bring about changes. This is a good thing.

But in the end, what it finally comes down to is that we must follow the Liturgical laws which the Church has established, whether we like them or not; whether the specifics might be labeled conservative or liberal or anything else.

Too many Catholics have forgotten those words of Vatican II in SC #22 “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.” That’s not negotiable; it’s not ambiguous; and it’s certainly not optional. Anyone who makes changes to the Liturgy on his own authority is wrong.

**There are many options in the licit celebration of the Mass. We may all have our own personal preferences on how these options should be exercised. We may not like certain things that we see in the liturgical norms of the Church; but that does not give us the authority to change them. **

The original post suggested a discussion on how we reconcile these differences. We don’t. The “value” of individuals taking it upon themselves to alter the Mass is not a value at all, it is a form of deceit. Licit celebration of the Liturgy does not have to reconcile itself to illicit acts.

Those who want changes to the Liturgy should content themselves to writings, discussion, communication and above all prayerful discernment. Change is not only possible, it is both desireable and inevitable. But it must always be legitimate.

Those who oppose changes should likewise be willing to accept the authority of the Church; and that means accepting legitimate changes, and/or allowing others the liberty of embracing legitimate changes.

Simply put, if we are following the Liturgical norms of the Church (regardless of what form they may take) we are in the right; if we take it upon ourselves to change or reject that which we have no authority to change or reject, we are in the wrong.

Another excellent posting…

There are quite a few people who get all mired-down (which is terribly sad and even tragic) in things like: **the use of the orans posture; holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; processing up for a blessing when unable to receive communion; whether or not the processional cross has a corpus; female servers/cantors; the non-use of sanctus bells; location of the tabernacle; the construction of sacred vessels; liturgical music, etc. etc. **and often times what they are complaining about is actually licit! It may not be their choice but it is licit.

They spend so much time and develop so much frustration and anger over matters like the above. It’s terribly sad. Sadly when a real abuse rears its ugly head, they are not taken seriously because they have cried wolf one too many times.

 

[Newbie2]

The original post suggested a discussion on how we reconcile these differences.

No, the OP (yours truly) suggested a discussion on how we reconcile these positions. Subtle perhaps, but significant. Lemme 'splain:

For example, I think Chuy addresses this in that one step is to recognize what true abuse entails. Perhaps someone in my catagory 2 will scream abuse at something that is not truly an abuse, yet that is their “position”. Perhaps if they were to recognize that it truly isn’t an abuse, is rather something that may be unusual but is allowed, there is no real “difference”.

Semantics, maybe.

But I do like FrD’s statement:

***“Those who oppose changes should likewise be willing to accept the authority of the Church; and that means accepting legitimate changes, and/or allowing others the liberty of embracing legitimate changes.” ***

…which goes along the same lines.

 

[FrDavid96]

Another excellent posting…

There are quite a few people who get all mired-down (which is terribly sad and even tragic) in things like: **the use of the orans posture; holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; processing up for a blessing when unable to receive communion; whether or not the processional cross has a corpus; female servers/cantors; the non-use of sanctus bells; location of the tabernacle; the construction of sacred vessels; liturgical music, etc. etc. **and often times what they are complaining about is actually licit! It may not be their choice but it is licit.

They spend so much time and develop so much frustration and anger over matters like the above. It’s terribly sad. Sadly when a real abuse rears its ugly head, they are not taken seriously because they have cried wolf one too many times.

Yet we always have to remember that just because someone likes a particular “thing” does not make it licit. The Church decides. Many Catholics are under the misunderstanding that just because they see a thing being done, that makes it legitimate, or just because a particular practice is not spelled-out in minute detail, they are thereby given license to take whatever liberties they so choose. This is a false sense of freedom. When we tolerate abuses rather than speak out against them, we actually become unwitting participants in the abuse.

 

[Newbie2]

Yet we always have to remember that just because someone likes a particular “thing” does not make it licit. The Church decides. Many Catholics are under the misunderstanding that just because they see a thing being done, that makes it legitimate, or just because a particular practice is not spelled-out in minute detail, they are thereby given license to take whatever liberties they so choose. This is a false sense of freedom. When we tolerate abuses rather than speak out against them, we actually become unwitting participants in the abuse.

…as long as we’re talking about genuine abuses, seems we agree.

 

[FrDavid96]

Let’s get back to the original issue.

If every parish, diocese, priest, bishop, layperson, etc. etc. would simply follow the Liturgical norms given to us by the Church, we would not have any problems, real or perceived, with regard to abuses.

The very fact that Catholics are even engaging in these discussions expresses the reality that that is all too often not the case.

I often find myself in a position where a parishioner suggests that we do something different at Mass–something they saw at another parish, or read about in a magazine. My response is this: show me that in the GIRM, Sacramentary, or other legitimate liturgical law, and I will at least consider it. Sometimes that results in trying something new (at least to us or to me), but the reality is that most of the time, it goes no further than that. (Outside of the Mass is a different story.)

Is there anyone out there who sees a problem with this?

 

[Newbie2]

I often find myself in a position where a parishioner suggests that we do something different at Mass–something they saw at another parish, or read about in a magazine. My response is this: show me that in the GIRM, Sacramentary, or other legitimate liturgical law, and I will at least consider it. Sometimes that results in trying something new (at least to us or to me), but the reality is that most of the time, it goes no further than that. (Outside of the Mass is a different story.)

Is there anyone out there who sees a problem with this?

Show you that something is expressely permitted, expressely forbidden or if nothing is said about that “something”?

 

[FrDavid96]

Show you that something is expressely permitted, expressely forbidden or if nothing is said about that “something”?

If it’s permitted, I will give it sincere consideration.

If it’s forbidden, I will not do it.

As for “nothing is said about [it]” Vatican II clearly states that no one may add anything to the Sacred Liturgy on his own authority.

 

[muskieman]

FrDave, I was in a Church today and a teacher brought some student in to practice a dance(twirling ribbons on a stick) they were going to perform at the student mass the next day. This is a grade school and while the preformance was nice I wondered what was the reason and place it had at mass. I would like you comment.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDave, I was in a Church today and a teacher brought some student in to practice a dance(twirling ribbons on a stick) they were going to perform at the student mass the next day. This is a grade school and while the preformance was nice I wondered what was the reason and place it had at mass. I would like you comment.

If you’re talking about the United States, the answer is simple: liturgical dance has no place in the Mass.

Here’s a good site on the issue: adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html

PS-- in theory, that might change some time in the future. The US Conference of Bishops has given the matter some thought (according to their publications). Nevertheless, at the present, it has no place in the Mass.

I suppose one might say that liturgical dance outside of the Sacred Liturgy, but inside the walls of the Church is a possibility.

 

[japhy]

It is for many people simply an issue of ignorance, on both scales.

Some people see something done somewhere and assume it’s acceptable. They’re not aware of the GIRM, the Missal, Redemptionis Sacramentum, etc. And some people see something done somewhere and are convinced it’s not licit. They are also not aware of the variations allowed.

If the faithful (including the clergy!) were adequately (or thoroughly, as the case may be) catechized in the liturgy, there would be less improvisation and innovation.

 

[Chuy]

Yet we always have to remember that just because someone likes a particular “thing” does not make it licit. The Church decides. Many Catholics are under the misunderstanding that just because they see a thing being done, that makes it legitimate, or just because a particular practice is not spelled-out in minute detail, they are thereby given license to take whatever liberties they so choose. This is a false sense of freedom. When we tolerate abuses rather than speak out against them, we actually become unwitting participants in the abuse.

Of course, but there is more to it than that. It’s determining what the Church (and not EWTN, etc.) has already decided and that is no trivial task in many cases.

I chose: the use of the orans posture; holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; processing up for a blessing when unable to receive communion; whether or not the processional cross has a corpus; female servers/cantors; the non-use of sanctus bells; location of the tabernacle; the construction of sacred vessels and liturgical music because they are things that many people get awfully upset about on these forums, yet they are not abuses.

You are absolutely wrong to broadly suggest “when we tolerate abuses rather than speak out against them, we actually become unwitting participants in the abuse.” I think this would be true with Graviora delicta and grave matters as defined by RS. In other cases I am not so sure at all.

In other cases people face real and prolonged ridicule from their pastors if the dare mention suspected abuses outside of the type listed above. Many such people lack the luxury of attending Mass at other parishes. To suggest such people are “unwitting participants in the abuse” is beyond the pale. Many are just desperately trying to fulfill their Sunday obligations.