Complaint about liturgical abuse –*a satisfied customer

[Vincent1984]

I’ve spent years silently fuming about liturgical abuses, or (more often) not-so-silently groaning to family and friends after yet another Mass where some Father Trendy thinks he knows how to say Mass better than the Church. How hard can it be, I often wondered, simply to “say the black and do the red”?

I’ve recently moved to a new area and it’s taken my wife and I a while to find a parish that isn’t chock-full of abuses. We thought we’d found one, until a week ago (3rd Sunday of Lent) it suddenly went pear shaped:

• Lay people reading the Gospel (Palm Sunday style)!
• EMHCs giving blessings!
• No communion plates, and woman dropping Hosts all over the floor!
• Lay woman EMHC purifying vessels after Mass!

I was really disappointed that the priest I thought was a ‘good’ one, was sudddenly taking a turn for the worse. So I did something I’ve never done before … I wrote a letter to him. First class post, the same day, laying out the reasons from GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum why these are not allowed, and asking him to ‘let me know the details of the indult exempting his parish from what I had hitherto believed to be the rule’.

A reply came the next day, delivered by hand, saying that “you are absolutely right in all you say and I agree with you on every point”. He explained that he was trying gradually to reform the parish from what it was like before it arrived, but that some of his steps had led to group-walkouts and generally a lot of hurt, so he was having to go slowly. I met up with him later and he gave me more of the backstory. Now I don’t blame him at all, and have a lot of sympathy for him after what he’s had to put up with from ‘progressive’ laity who hounded the previous priest out after 18 months.

The moral of the story, if you’ve read this far, is that complaining to the priest gives him the opportunity to give his side of the story, rather than bearing a silent – and possibly unfair – grudge. I’m now trying to get more involved in the parish, knowing that the priest is very much on the side of the angels, and that having another active parishoner who shares his views will be helpful, if only in a small way.

 

[FightingFat]

I’ve spent years silently fuming about liturgical abuses, or (more often) not-so-silently groaning to family and friends after yet another Mass where some Father Trendy thinks he knows how to say Mass better than the Church. How hard can it be, I often wondered, simply to “say the black and do the red”?

I’ve recently moved to a new area and it’s taken my wife and I a while to find a parish that isn’t chock-full of abuses. We thought we’d found one, until a week ago (3rd Sunday of Lent) it suddenly went pear shaped:

• Lay people reading the Gospel (Palm Sunday style)!
• EMHCs giving blessings!
• No communion plates, and woman dropping Hosts all over the floor!
• Lay woman EMHC purifying vessels after Mass!

I was really disappointed that the priest I thought was a ‘good’ one, was sudddenly taking a turn for the worse. So I did something I’ve never done before … I wrote a letter to him. First class post, the same day, laying out the reasons from GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum why these are not allowed, and asking him to ‘let me know the details of the indult exempting his parish from what I had hitherto believed to be the rule’.

A reply came the next day, delivered by hand, saying that “you are absolutely right in all you say and I agree with you on every point”. He explained that he was trying gradually to reform the parish from what it was like before it arrived, but that some of his steps had led to group-walkouts and generally a lot of hurt, so he was having to go slowly. I met up with him later and he gave me more of the backstory. Now I don’t blame him at all, and have a lot of sympathy for him after what he’s had to put up with from ‘progressive’ laity who hounded the previous priest out after 18 months.

The moral of the story, if you’ve read this far, is that complaining to the priest gives him the opportunity to give his side of the story, rather than bearing a silent – and possibly unfair – grudge. I’m now trying to get more involved in the parish, knowing that the priest is very much on the side of the angels, and that having another active parishoner who shares his views will be helpful, if only in a small way.

Great story, thanks for sharing Vincent. I note you are a UK citizen, so that’s good too, what part of the country?

 

[Vincent1984]

Great story, thanks for sharing Vincent. I note you are a UK citizen, so that’s good too, what part of the country?

Hertfordshire.

 

[JRKH]

Vincent - A well written and inspiring post. Thank you for sharing this.

Based on how well you wrote this post, I don’t doubt but that your letter to the pastor was just as well and charitably written and I am equally sure that your support was well recieved by father.

I hope that you will continue to support him in his efforts, by prayer and also by active participation in parish life where the more orthodox view can be more readily heard.

Thank you for your courage, and for your encouragement.

Peace
James

 

[dconklin]

I’ve spent years silently fuming about liturgical abuses, or (more often) not-so-silently groaning to family and friends after yet another Mass where some Father Trendy thinks he knows how to say Mass better than the Church. How hard can it be, I often wondered, simply to “say the black and do the red”?

What has our Church become to cause so much angst and fuming? Over the past five or so years my parish has straightened many wrinkles out. Our Bishop sends out ‘directives’ or ‘corrections’ to all of the parishes to make sure things are being done right.

Vincent- I hope your fuming and venting will be no longer needed. I guess giving a darn is not so easy.

 

[JRKH]

What has our Church become to cause so much angst and fuming? Over the past five or so years my parish has straightened many wrinkles out. Our Bishop sends out ‘directives’ or ‘corrections’ to all of the parishes to make sure things are being done right.

Vincent- I hope your fuming and venting will be no longer needed. I guess giving a darn is not so easy.

How blessed you are to have such a bishop. This is a very good idea in that it can give pastors the clear guidance needed in order to overcome some of what the OP’s pastor is dealing with. Likewise, if any priests choose to ignore such directives, they find themselves in direct and clear disobediance of their bishop…

Peace
James

 

[The_Reginator]

What has our Church become to cause so much angst and fuming? .

Oh boy.
After being received into the Church at an FSSP parish I had to return to my local church for health reasons. (No, the EF is not unhealthy! I just couldn’t drive for a while.)
For the first few years at the OF Mass I discovered that I left Mass in a bad mood most Sundays. This is obviously not what our Lord intended when He left us with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Eventually I got over most things through prayer and Confession. And by keeping my eyes closed and head bowed a lot.
Our new priest is younger and a bit more orthodox. (If only he could see that ‘a round of applause’ is just plain rude in front of our Lord and Saviour.)

… I wrote a letter to him. First class post, the same day, laying out the reasons from GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum why these are not allowed, and asking him to ‘let me know the details of the indult exempting his parish from what I had hitherto believed to be the rule’.

A reply came the next day, delivered by hand, saying that “you are absolutely right in all you say and I agree with you on every point”. He explained that he was trying gradually to reform the parish from what it was like before it arrived, but that some of his steps had led to group-walkouts and generally a lot of hurt, so he was having to go slowly. I met up with him later and he gave me more of the backstory. Now I don’t blame him at all, and have a lot of sympathy for him after what he’s had to put up with from ‘progressive’ laity who hounded the previous priest out after 18 months.

Vincent, that is encouraging and makes the point that we all must try to read more Church documents so that we can speak/write with politeness and back up our concerns.
It is far too easy to ‘fly off the handle’ or fume and fume and fume…

 

[Spelling]

I’ve spent years silently fuming about liturgical abuses, or (more often) not-so-silently groaning to family and friends after yet another Mass where some Father Trendy thinks he knows how to say Mass better than the Church. How hard can it be, I often wondered, simply to “say the black and do the red”?

I’ve recently moved to a new area and it’s taken my wife and I a while to find a parish that isn’t chock-full of abuses. We thought we’d found one, until a week ago (3rd Sunday of Lent) it suddenly went pear shaped:

• Lay people reading the Gospel (Palm Sunday style)!
• EMHCs giving blessings!
• No communion plates, and woman dropping Hosts all over the floor!
• Lay woman EMHC purifying vessels after Mass!

I was really disappointed that the priest I thought was a ‘good’ one, was sudddenly taking a turn for the worse. So I did something I’ve never done before … I wrote a letter to him. First class post, the same day, laying out the reasons from GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum why these are not allowed, and asking him to ‘let me know the details of the indult exempting his parish from what I had hitherto believed to be the rule’.

A reply came the next day, delivered by hand, saying that “you are absolutely right in all you say and I agree with you on every point”. He explained that he was trying gradually to reform the parish from what it was like before it arrived, but that some of his steps had led to group-walkouts and generally a lot of hurt, so he was having to go slowly. I met up with him later and he gave me more of the backstory. Now I don’t blame him at all, and have a lot of sympathy for him after what he’s had to put up with from ‘progressive’ laity who hounded the previous priest out after 18 months.

The moral of the story, if you’ve read this far, is that complaining to the priest gives him the opportunity to give his side of the story, rather than bearing a silent – and possibly unfair – grudge. I’m now trying to get more involved in the parish, knowing that the priest is very much on the side of the angels, and that having another active parishoner who shares his views will be helpful, if only in a small way.

A layperson may bless another layperson. Where they do it and how they do it is key. Communion patens are not required. In my experience they do little good anyways. A dropped host very rarely happens here. Not sure why a “woman” was dropping hosts all over the floor where you are located. Women are not the only laypersons that are not allowed to purify the sacred vessels. The only laypersons that may purify sacred vessels are instituted acolytes.

 

[Vincent1984]

A layperson may bless another layperson. Where they do it and how they do it is key.

The response of the CDW here (§§2-3) says they should not do it to people who come in a line for communion, which is the problem that was occurring.

Communion patens are not required. In my experience they do little good anyways.

In my experience, they do a great job of catching Hosts before they fall to the floor. But there’s little point in us swapping personal anecdotes when Redemptionis Sacramentum §93 says that “the Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling”

Women are not the only laypersons that are not allowed to purify the sacred vessels. The only laypersons that may purify sacred vessels are instituted acolytes.

Correct. If I’d seen a man, I wouldn’t have known if he were an instituted acolyte or not. But this person was pretty clearly female, so that removed any possible confusion about her non-status as an instituted acolyte.

 

[Spelling]

The response of the CDW here (§§2-3) says they should not do it to people who come in a line for communion, which is the problem that was occurring.

In my experience, they do a great job of catching Hosts before they fall to the floor. But there’s little point in us swapping personal anecdotes when Redemptionis Sacramentum §93 says that “the Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling”

Correct. If I’d seen a man, I wouldn’t have known if he were an instituted acolyte or not. But this person was pretty clearly female, so that removed any possible confusion about her non-status as an instituted acolyte.

RS does not require using communion patens. I’m not sure what’s going on in your parish but if I see one dropped host every six months, that’s a lot. Those patens on a stick are particularly worthless it seems.

 

[Vincent1984]

RS does not require using communion patens.

I’ve just quoted from it and it seems to say exactly that. Perhaps someone could follow the link and explain to me what else it might mean if not that communion plates are reqiured. If you’re trying to to make a distinction between ‘required’ and “should be retained”, I disagree. I think it phrases it in that way to make it clear that this is an immemorial custom underlying the liturgy which reflects our belief in the Blessed Sacrament, and that it’s not dependant on the rubrics of any particular Missal or General Instruction.

I’m not sure what’s going on in your parish but if I see one dropped host every** six months**, that’s a lot.

Lucky you. I saw more than that in five minutes. Clearly this parish is having a few ‘issues’ at the moment, notwithstanding the efforts of their priest.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’ve just quoted from it and it seems to say exactly that. Perhaps someone could follow the link and explain to me what else it might mean if not that communion plates are reqiured.

Since RS was issued, I’ve been at Cathedrals around the US for various Masses and have rarely seen them used. I’ve also been to many Masses where a bishop was the main celebrant and they were not used. The fact is that Bishops around the world aren’t using them at their own Masses. Clearly the Vatican hasn’t pushed the issue.

Everything has a context. Not everything is of equal importance. For example, RS states in 49: “By reason of the sign, it is appropriate that at least some parts of the Eucharistic Bread coming from the fraction should be distributed to at least some of the faithful in Communion.”
Is it really a liturgical abuse if the celebrant consumes the entire fractioned host himself? Or distrubutes it only to the concelebrants? No, of course not.

 

[Spelling]

…Lucky you. I saw more than that in five minutes. Clearly this parish is having a few ‘issues’ at the moment, notwithstanding the efforts of their priest.

If distributors of holy communion are routinely dropping hosts, there is a real problem. Do they lack the hand/eye control necessary to distribute communion? Are they in that huge of a hurry? Are they intentionally trying to profane the Eucharist? Are there really not that many dropped hosts yet people just want to see patens in use?

 

[Spelling]

The OP does bring up a very valid point. Many Mass goers get extremely upset when they perceive a liturgical “abuse” and it impacts their worship of God. They just can’t understand why priest don’t just follow the Church documents. We had a very good example of different priests in similar parishes here locally.

The first priest was quite young. He wasn’t anally retentive down to the last minute detail (thank goodness) but he did quickly hack-n-slash away at some of the terrible, undeniable abuses. The uproar from much of the lay liturgical “inner circle” was truly horrible. Jaw-dropping horrible. For example, the musical director (a very gifted individual with years as a Hollywood professional) simply ignored the priests requests and then directives. Finally he was quietly replaced yet acted as if he was still in charge. He would coerce the cantors and musicians to keep things status quo. He rode roughshod over his replacement. It was a real test of the priest. Thankfully he had the absolute support of out bishop. Today that parish operates very well, less about 15 people who just wouldn’t change.

The other priest is the pastor of my parish. He preached restraint for the first year while he learned the ins-and-outs of the parish. That seemed wise as the other parish had experienced some terrible pain with the hack-n-slash method. Our new pastor took care of some small things that were really horrible abuses and he seemed enthusiastic but he was taking his time. After awhile he seemed to just give-in and accept the bad things that happen here. He’s been here about 5 years and he’s pretty much a beaten man in terms of liturgical reform. He’ll change things the bishop demands and that’s it. His focus now is writing a small booklet about the parish and redecorating the parish hall. Maybe our next pastor will have more resolve.

People seem to think that it’s an easy job to reform a parish. That the pastor is in charge and that’s that. In reality it takes strong support from the bishop and a man with tremendous courage and resolve. Things can get ugly.

 

[thomas_jd]

I’ve spent years silently fuming about liturgical abuses, or (more often) not-so-silently groaning to family and friends after yet another Mass where some Father Trendy thinks he knows how to say Mass better than the Church. How hard can it be, I often wondered, simply to “say the black and do the red”?

I’ve recently moved to a new area and it’s taken my wife and I a while to find a parish that isn’t chock-full of abuses. We thought we’d found one, until a week ago (3rd Sunday of Lent) it suddenly went pear shaped:

• Lay people reading the Gospel (Palm Sunday style)!
• EMHCs giving blessings!
• No communion plates, and woman dropping Hosts all over the floor!
• Lay woman EMHC purifying vessels after Mass!

I was really disappointed that the priest I thought was a ‘good’ one, was sudddenly taking a turn for the worse. So I did something I’ve never done before … I wrote a letter to him. First class post, the same day, laying out the reasons from GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum why these are not allowed, and asking him to ‘let me know the details of the indult exempting his parish from what I had hitherto believed to be the rule’.

A reply came the next day, delivered by hand, saying that “you are absolutely right in all you say and I agree with you on every point”. He explained that he was trying gradually to reform the parish from what it was like before it arrived, but that some of his steps had led to group-walkouts and generally a lot of hurt, so he was having to go slowly. I met up with him later and he gave me more of the backstory. Now I don’t blame him at all, and have a lot of sympathy for him after what he’s had to put up with from ‘progressive’ laity who hounded the previous priest out after 18 months.

The moral of the story, if you’ve read this far, is that complaining to the priest gives him the opportunity to give his side of the story, rather than bearing a silent – and possibly unfair – grudge. I’m now trying to get more involved in the parish, knowing that the priest is very much on the side of the angels, and that having another active parishoner who shares his views will be helpful, if only in a small way.

The instructions to a new pastor, in my Archdiocese, are to move slowly at first!
Abuses, similiar to those you have mentioned, are always best addressed to the pastor.
It is refreshing to see one actually follow the course you high-lited! Too often we see the opposite approach.
There was an indult to allow E.M.H.C.'s purify. That has expired, that took time to stop
at my parish, also the elimination of the blessings by the E.M.H.C.
The issue that must be addressed first is the Gospel Readings.
That cannot go on!

 

[JRKH]

I’ve just quoted from it and it seems to say exactly that. Perhaps someone could follow the link and explain to me what else it might mean if not that communion plates are reqiured. If you’re trying to to make a distinction between ‘required’ and “should be retained”, I disagree. I think it phrases it in that way to make it clear that this is an immemorial custom underlying the liturgy which reflects our belief in the Blessed Sacrament, and that it’s not dependant on the rubrics of any particular Missal or General Instruction.

Vincent, I must disagree with you here. I come from a background of using various technical specifications, policies, precedures etc where the use of langauge is critical. In all cases there is a clear and uniform difference between the term “should” and “shall” or “must”. Should indicates that something is recommended, even preferred, but not required.

I must also say that I have not seen patens used in any OF masses I have been to and the only one I’ve seen where they are used is on EWTN.
I believe that, since receiving in the hand is the common method of receiving in most all OF parishes, the Paten is seen as redundant and even as something that gets in the way.

Peace
James