Are these liturgical abuses?

[luangwa]

I went to a Mass which was celebrated in the presence of the relics of a Saint which had been brought in from overseas. The relics were enclosed in a reliquary in front of the altar and were incensed at the start of Mass. However, is there any justification for these non-events during the Mass?

(1) Greeting and Sign of the Cross were omitted
(2) Penetential Rite was omitted

Also, what is the situation with:

(3) Glass jar and glasses being used as vessels for the Precious Blood?

 

[beckyann2597]

I would probably ask for some clarification… Was this a Mass or a Communion service and presentation of the relics?

Also, bring up the Glass Chalice and perhaps buy (or raise money for) a proper chalice?

Sorry, I am no expert but maybe these questions will end up bringing answers?

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

luangwa:

I went to a Mass which was celebrated in the presence of the relics of a Saint which had been brought in from overseas. The relics were enclosed in a reliquary in front of the altar and were incensed at the start of Mass. However, is there any justification for these non-events during the Mass?

(1) Greeting and Sign of the Cross were omitted
(2) Penetential Rite was omitted

Also, what is the situation with:

(3) Glass jar and glasses being used as vessels for the Precious Blood?

#3 is definitely liturgical abuse.

 

[Lorrie]

I would think all three would be liturgical abuses (knowing # 3 is definitely one like Fidei Defensor said). I can’t see a reason why any Mass (or communion service) wouldn’t be started with making the sign of the cross. As for the Penetential Rite, if it was a Mass that (I think) should’ve been included. Like beckyann said, was it a Mass or a communion service? Was a priest there?

 

[ajsauntjojo]

My church has a beautiful silver and glass chalice that we use on special occassions. Also, we have a very plain, ceramic one that is used by a visiting priest.

We are not at mass to police rules we are at mass to receive the Lord. It’s a shame that our preoccupation is about what is going on around us and not in the real meaning of the sacrament.

 

[Della]

ajsauntjojo:

My church has a beautiful silver and glass chalice that we use on special occassions. Also, we have a very plain, ceramic one that is used by a visiting priest.

We are not at mass to police rules we are at mass to receive the Lord. It’s a shame that our preoccupation is about what is going on around us and not in the real meaning of the sacrament.

While I agree that any undue nitpicking should be avoided, a glass chalice is an abuse because the rubrics demand one made of a precious metal that cannot break. If a glass chalice might fall, it would break, which is why it is not suitable for a communion chalice.

As to the rest of the ceremony, sometimes these parts of the Mass are replaced with other rites for special occasions. I wouldn’t worry about it unless every Mass omits these parts of the liturgy.

 

[Petertherock]

The church I go to hardly ever says the penetential rite. It makes me sad because it’s my favorite prayer and I say it often on my own.

 

[puzzleannie]

luangwa:

I went to a Mass which was celebrated in the presence of the relics of a Saint which had been brought in from overseas. The relics were enclosed in a reliquary in front of the altar and were incensed at the start of Mass. However, is there any justification for these non-events during the Mass?

(1) Greeting and Sign of the Cross were omitted
(2) Penetential Rite was omitted

Also, what is the situation with:

(3) Glass jar and glasses being used as vessels for the Precious Blood?

If this was a special Mass which began with some kind of ceremony for blessing the relics it may very well be that this introductory rite replaced the usual penitential rite, and so there would be no abuse. I am not up on all the votive Masses, but it is a possibility. A Mass where babies are to be baptized would be another example, where there may be a blessing and welcoming of the families and babies at the entrance, replacing the penitential rite. Masses where there is a sprinkling rite are another example. So without knowing all the circumstances, I would not call it an abuse. We have talked about the proper material for Mass vessels at great length here, don’t think it needs more discussion. It may not be proper, but not necessarily an abuse, as in priest re-writing the liturgy for his own purposes.

 

[luangwa]

This was definitely a Mass.
It was not a glass chalice, it was a jar, like one for orange juice. There was also one Chalice, which was elevated at the Consecration and there were some glasses also. The Blood was poured from the jar into the glasses just before distribution. There were quite a few people at the Mass. Is that an exemption from using Chalices?
I also thought that the incensation might replace the Penitential Rite, but I found it strange when we went into the Gloria without even making the Sign of the Cross.

 

[Della]

luangwa:

This was definitely a Mass.
It was not a glass chalice, it was a jar, like one for orange juice. There was also one Chalice, which was elevated at the Consecration and there were some glasses also. The Blood was poured from the jar into the glasses just before distribution. There were quite a few people at the Mass. Is that an exemption from using Chalices?
I also thought that the incensation might replace the Penitential Rite, but I found it strange when we went into the Gloria without even making the Sign of the Cross.

Well, the glass OJ jar was most certainly an abuse! Why-ever in the world would they have used such a common and inappropriate vessel? Are you certain that’s what it was? It just sounds so odd! But, in any case, glass containers are not proper matter for chalices, as I cited above, no matter how cheap or expensive they might be. And pouring the Precious Blood into the secondary chalices was wrong, as well. After reading this I can well believe the other parts of the Mass you described were wrong too, sad to say.