Another Liturgical Abuse Video- B. Brown's Diocese of Orange

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angels_Watchin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Julianna said:
Well whoever had the camera didn’t do a very good job. I saw alot of feet, and movement back and forth. But for some reason there were excellent shots of the woman in the shorts, and the clapping. :hmmm:

It does make me wonder, “who” was doing the taping. Don’t tell me the Patriot Act is alive and well in the Catholic Church. I always wondered what John Ashcroft was up to when he left DC. :whistle:
Click to expand...
The GIRM isn’t even alive and well in the Catholic Church! :rolleyes:
 
paramedicgirl said:
I’m pretty sure Our Lord would consider the liturgical abuses that can lead others away from the faith the more serious of the three things you mentioned. .
Click to expand...
Thus my caveat “besides deviation from the GIRM”. But I would make any bets on which leads more away from the faith. This video did end up on the internet, after all. That can’t be good. And shorts in church are more visible to the those not familiar with the GIRM than glass pitchers.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
ocp.org/en/products/worship/missals.php

There are lots of different OCP missals.
I’m holding a Heritage Missal on my lap right now. It does havea Concordat cum originali at the beginning by the Bishop of Portland.

But it sure doesn’t that that Happy Version of the Agnus Dei! And considering that no one may change the words of the liturgy, if the Bishop is okaying this version, something fishy is going on in Portland with Oregon Catholic Press.
Click to expand...
Something fishy is always going on in Portland, but as far as the printed rubrics go in OCP publications, I’ve never seen them or any other American publisher deviate from the approved texts. The problems are contained within the hymns and Mass parts.
 
anamchara said:
What parts of the GIRM do you see as being not alive?
Click to expand...
Well, since you asked what I see, here is my list.
  1. The hosts we consume are left over from a previous Mass.
  2. The EMHC unlock and open the Tabernacle and bring the hosts up to the sanctaury during the Mass.
  3. Someone other than the priest giving the homily. (Like the teenager in the video)
  4. Someone gives a talk in place of the homily on a Sunday
  5. Ommitting the creed
  6. The priest leaving the sanctuary to shake hands during the sign of peace.
    7.EMHC being used unnecesarily and excessively
  7. Priests refusing to give someone communion on the tongue
  8. Communion given to Protestants at weddings and funerals
  9. Tabernacle is located in an out of the way, hard to find chapel (A Church in a town close to me has removed the tabernacle to the basement.)
    11No images of the saints in the Church
    12.People standing around the altar holding hands during the consecration
    13.People imitating gestures of the priest that are reserved for him alone.
  10. Women having their feet washed on Holy Thursday
 
paramedicgirl said:
Well, since you asked what I see, here is my list.
  1. The hosts we consume are left over from a previous Mass.
  2. The EMHC unlock and open the Tabernacle and bring the hosts up to the sanctaury during the Mass.
  3. Someone other than the priest giving the homily. (Like the teenager in the video)
  4. Someone gives a talk in place of the homily on a Sunday
  5. Ommitting the creed
  6. The priest leaving the sanctuary to shake hands during the sign of peace.
    7.EMHC being used unnecesarily and excessively
  7. Priests refusing to give someone communion on the tongue
  8. Communion given to Protestants at weddings and funerals
  9. Tabernacle is located in an out of teh way, hard to find chapel (A Church ina town close to me has removed the tabernacle to the basement.)
    11No images of the saints in the Church
    12.People standing around the altar holding hands during the consecration
    13.People imitating gestures of the priest that are reserved for him alone.
  10. Women having their feet washed on Holy Thursday
Click to expand...
Thanks for the list paramed 🙂 my goodness. Now are you telling me that all these things you listed go against the GIRM? Can you show me where in the GIRM this is?

I have to say moving the tabernacle is the worst thing I read on your list. I feel lucky that ours is in the center. I haven’t noticed any of the things you listed at our parish but the washing of womens feet. Our old parish did this. But I didn’t think that went against the GIRM. :confused:
 
anamchara said:
Thanks for the list paramed 🙂 my goodness. Now are you telling me that all these things you listed go against the GIRM? Can you show me where in the GIRM this is?

I have to say moving the tabernacle is the worst thing I read on your list. I feel lucky that ours is in the center. I haven’t noticed any of the things you listed at our parish but the washing of womens feet. Our old parish did this. But I didn’t think that went against the GIRM. :confused:
Click to expand...
Ana…
here is a link to the GIRM nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
I am sure that paramedicgirl can provide line and chapter where these things go against the GIRM…but it is also handy to have (for your own use)…
I am off to bed…Have a good night and God Bless!
 
anamchara said:
Thanks for the list paramed 🙂 my goodness. Now are you telling me that all these things you listed go against the GIRM? Can you show me where in the GIRM this is?

I have to say moving the tabernacle is the worst thing I read on your list. I feel lucky that ours is in the center. I haven’t noticed any of the things you listed at our parish but the washing of womens feet. Our old parish did this. But I didn’t think that went against the GIRM. :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not going to do your homework for you. You can look them up yourself. 🙂 I can assure you, they are all prohibited. But you should check for yourself, just to be sure.
 
anamchara said:
Thanks for the list paramed 🙂 my goodness. Now are you telling me that all these things you listed go against the GIRM? Can you show me where in the GIRM this is?

I have to say moving the tabernacle is the worst thing I read on your list. I feel lucky that ours is in the center. I haven’t noticed any of the things you listed at our parish but the washing of womens feet. Our old parish did this. But I didn’t think that went against the GIRM. :confused:
Click to expand...
Go to zenit.org and check the liturgy questions. You will see clear documentation that it is an abuse. (Father McNamara cites the text that defines it as prohibited.)
 
paramedicgirl said:
Well, since you asked what I see, here is my list.
  1. The hosts we consume are left over from a previous Mass.
Click to expand...
I too won’t do all the homework, but I will do the first. This is not a violation of the GIRM, any more that receiving under one species is a violation.

Here is a link to the GIRM
christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girm.html

The passage in question says.
h. It is most desirable that the faithful receive the Lord’s body
from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they share in the chalice
Click to expand...
(56h)
Since is “most desireable” and not “must” or “required” that means it is not a violation to have a reserve of host for when a larger than expected number of communicants causes the priest to run short.
 
As I’ve observed, generally the rule of discourse is that the onus of substantiation of a claim is upon the person making the claim. IOW, the “homework” of proof belongs to those who claim. I mean, that’s just good form.
 
Joysong said:
And, pray tell, do you know for a FACT that the Agnus Dei in the O.P. is deficient as specified by the GIRM? You have seen it? You are publicly allowed to condemn it based on assumptions?

.
Click to expand...
The Oregon Catholic Press missal includes the words “Bread of Life” in the Agnus Dei, which is not allowed by the Documents of the Church regarding the Mass. (page 127 of the April - June 2006 issue. It also is noted *Other invocations may be used." WRONG!!!

They can say it’s approved if they like, but it’s wrong - Rome has spoken on this as linked in the above posts.
So, no assumptions here.
 
Strummer said:
As I’ve observed, generally the rule of discourse is that the onus of substantiation of a claim is upon the person making the claim. IOW, the “homework” of proof belongs to those who claim. I mean, that’s just good form.
Click to expand...
I have observed that it is the onus is on the most bored or who has less to do outside the e-universe. 😃

It may be he who cares the most ought to look it up. I care a little bit, so I did one. Of course, with our backing-up one’s post, it becomes no better than opinion.
 
pnewton said:
I too won’t do all the homework, but I will do the first. This is not a violation of the GIRM, any more that receiving under one species is a violation.

Here is a link to the GIRM
christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girm.html

The passage in question says.
(56h)
Since is “most desireable” and not “must” or “required” that means it is not a violation to have a reserve of host for when a larger than expected number of communicants causes the priest to run short.
Click to expand...
What I am talking about is where the priest only consecrates his host, and gets all the rest from the tabernacle for the people who are there for daily Mass. He never consecrates more than one host at daily Mass. This is not in keeping with the GIRM where it says it is “most desirable” to have hosts consecrated at that Mass.

But we don’t follow the GIRM in Canada, anyway, so I guess it doesn’t really matter.
 
dumspirospero said:
All I have to say is that I am very glad I am not a Catholic in California…it appears their are very grave abuses on a wide scale taking place out there.
Click to expand...
I think there’s something in the water in the seminaries there. This is where I’ve witnessed the worst abuses: lay homilies, paraphrasing of the Canon of the Mass, etc.
 
1) It may be helpful to consider the following—

Videos are allowed and can be a valuable source to document facts and situations, but those viewing them should be aware that:

.videos are the work of individuals (generally anonymous) whose agenda and objectivity is generally unknown to the viewer,

.videos are not necessarily accompanied by verifiable documentation that the persons or places depicted are those named,

.the context of events depicted in a video may or may not be as described and the viewer is not always privy to sufficient information to have assurances in that regard,

.superimposed captioning in a video to replace a poor or absent audio track has inherent risks as regards accuracy.

2) This particular video concerned one diocese, one bishop. Others immediately felt that indictments of other bishops, other dioceses must of necessity follow.

3) Please do not glut the forum with a constant stream of videos.

4) Please do review:
Post 6 - Banned Topics
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511

Item 16. Identifying individual parishes or clergy (including hierarchy) as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion without publicly available documentation that such has been alleged

Forum Rules:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

Item 6: Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

In other words, use discretion, good judgment and charity.

Thank you!
 
GIRM:
  1. e : during the breaking of the bread and the commingling, the is as a rule sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; otherwise it is recited aloud. This invocation may be repeated as often as necessary to accompany the breaking of the bread. The final reprise concludes with the words, .
Click to expand...
Dear Angels Watchin’ …

Your post is not accurate where you stated:
The Oregon Catholic Press missal includes the words “Bread of Life” in the Agnus Dei, which is not allowed by the Documents of the Church regarding the Mass. (page 127 of the April - June 2006 issue. It also is noted *Other invocations may be used." WRONG!!!
Click to expand...
They can say it’s approved if they like, but it’s wrong - Rome has spoken on this as linked in the above posts.
Click to expand...
… And you needn’t shout [WRONG!!!]. May we discuss this using a legitimate source? If Rome has spoken, kindly show where my former statement is incorrect; i.e., that when a missalette provides the required notice of approval, the liturgical content is in error. Incidentally, there does not have to be an imprimatur as some “thought.” The Concordat is sufficient.
The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy is a standing committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The Committee has the responsibility in the bishops’ conference for all matters relating to the liturgy. The Secretariat for the Liturgy carries out the work of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy. It oversees the preparation and approval of liturgical books and texts and grants the concordat cum originali for publications of liturgical texts in the U.S.A
nccbuscc.org/liturgy/
Click to expand...
Back to your alleged statement. The GIRM does not specify that other terms within the Agnus Dei are forbidden, but allows for its extension as the missalette stated. If “you” believe it is wrong, you need to take it up with the Bishop who gave the Concordat — not the OCP. Your comments suggest that the Bishop, the GIRM, and the OCP are all in error.
 
Joysong said:
Originally Posted by GIRM
56. e : during the breaking of the bread and the commingling, the is as a rule sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; otherwise it is recited aloud. This invocation may be repeated as often as necessary to accompany the breaking of the bread. The final reprise concludes with the words, .
Click to expand...
Joysong what version of the GIRM are you using?
When I go to look at it…#56 is about the Silence not the Angus Dei
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top