J
johnpaullover
Guest
Why dos everyone have to critisize th mass to make sure it is valid?
It is spiritual suicide! It is dumb!
It is spiritual suicide! It is dumb!
- Status
M
muledog
Guest
Why? Because, among other things, "it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease." (*Redemptionis Sacramentum, *no.6)
Also, because abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.** Thus, they also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized him’**" (*Ecclesia de Eucharistia, *no. 10, 6)
T
thistle
Guest
I would think that blatant abuses should be followed up on but what I have found from reading the many threads on this subject is that some people don’t even know what is an abuse or not , and if an abuse whether it is a grave abuse or not. Some people consider, for example, holding hands during the Our Father as an abuse and rant on about it. It is not an abuse.
My impression from the posts in these forums on the subject is that many people’s main focus when they go to Mass is to try to look for abuses instead of their main focus being on Christ. Some seem disappointed if they can’t find abuses and then move on to complain about crying children or the way people dress.
What I have noticed (if I’m wrong please correct me) is that all the people who have complained about abuses they say they have seen do not appear to have waited after Mass to talk to the priest about it. Why not? Can’t spare a few minutes to ask the priest about it?
Let people participate in Mass with a true heart and be there for Jesus. If an obvious grave abuse does occur then it can later be taken up with the priest.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Well, I can share a couple of grave abuses in a different parish that is quite liberal.
*]During the Consecration, the people were mouthing out loud the prayers…this si my body, this si my blood. But the priest did not mouth them at all. How do I know this? They had a jumbo focused on him. No Jesus.
*]at the same parish during a mission, the visiting priest ad libbed the Consecration, and again…no Jesus! I did not give honour to a host that is unconsecrated.
I came out of the Church with angina pain. It took ten minutes to get to the car and find my spray! A l-o-n-g ten minutes! Let alone, how Jesus felt! His eople were dupped!
M
MusicMan
Guest
The self-appointed liturgy police concern me too. There are a lot of abuses out there… many of them with good reasons for their occurring. That doesn’t always make them right, but it does explain them. When I attend Mass and am not involved in some way beyond just being in the congregation, I always pray that Jesus will help me stay focused on Him during the Mass, and not the way the Mass is celebrated. It helps.
My priest commits an abuse that really should be reported, but I will defend until the end of time. He is notorious about skipping the Creed. My priest is pastor of our church and the one in the next town over. He schedules the Masses close together for the convenience of the people attending, not for his own ease of travel. Often, he’ll skip the Creed at the early Mass to ensure he gets to his next church in time to begin Mass. Is this an abuse? Yes. Should it be reported? Absolutely. Am I going to? NO WAY. I know why he’s doing it, and my prayers are not that the bishop will make him correct this abuse, but rather we will have an increase for vocations to the priesthood so that my pastor only has to be pastor of one church.
My priest commits an abuse that really should be reported, but I will defend until the end of time. He is notorious about skipping the Creed. My priest is pastor of our church and the one in the next town over. He schedules the Masses close together for the convenience of the people attending, not for his own ease of travel. Often, he’ll skip the Creed at the early Mass to ensure he gets to his next church in time to begin Mass. Is this an abuse? Yes. Should it be reported? Absolutely. Am I going to? NO WAY. I know why he’s doing it, and my prayers are not that the bishop will make him correct this abuse, but rather we will have an increase for vocations to the priesthood so that my pastor only has to be pastor of one church.
M
muledog
Guest
Since most “men-in-the-pew” aren’t trained liturgists, of course they are going to have questions about what goes on at Mass. They are here in this forum to clarify what goes on. That is - to some extent - why we have these forums. I know from personal experience that many pastors will turn a deaf ear on anyone who comes to them with a question of possible liturgical abuses.
I can tell from the wording of your post that you are “okay” with at least some of the non-traditional innovations that are being practiced during Mass, and that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as “ranting.”
Judging from official replies from the Congregation for Divine Worship, holding hands is inappropriate during the Our Father. It is also an innovation brought over from Protestant experiences of the faithful. The reason so many people are upset is that they feel this practice infringes upon their rights as faithful Catholics to celebrate Mass void of unnecessary additions or ommitions.
Not that we are “looking for abuses”, but we are having them thrown in our faces on a regular basis. As you can see from recent liturgical documents, it’s not unusual to see priests incorporating abuses on an habitual basis.
Not sure where you got that idea. I scheduled a meeting with our new pastor after six months of liturgical “hell.” After two minutes of discussion, he called me a “liturgy cop” and told me the meeting was over. His answer was always “it’s in the liturgy documents”, although he failed to specifically tell me which one(s). He said that he only answers to the bishop.
I agree with you on this point, and I believe that most posters on this forum do exactly the same. Most people don’t have an agenda. They just want a good liturgy as specified by tradition and our magisterium.
F
Fidei_Defensor
Guest
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
The question was:
So! My response to johnpaullover is:
What do YOU perceive as being that which everyone criticizes which prevents a Mass from being valid?
Thanks.
No-one has addressed the question - but have hived off onto abuses. Abuses are always “nasties”, but do not necessarily invalidate a Mass!
So! My response to johnpaullover is:
What do YOU perceive as being that which everyone criticizes which prevents a Mass from being valid?
Thanks.
P
palmas85
Guest
You have hit the nail on the head my friend.
CONVENIENCE OF THE PEOPLE should be without a doubt the major concern of the clergy anywhere. Why lets look at scripture,for some examples of this. At some point in the Gospels, someone tells Christ that he has to bury his father before he can follow Him. Of course Christ tells him, go ahead, take care of your obligations, I understand fully, we’ll hold everything up for you. take all the time you need. In another episode Christ tells his followers, relax dudes, the path ahead is smooth and sweet. Don’t worry about doing anything extra in order to follow me. When it’s conveient for you to come along I’ll be waiting.But lets look at it from Gods perspective too.The Creed is one of the oldest parts of the mass, so maybe God is tired of hearing it so often after all these years. And after all it really doesn’t mean anything important does it?? So lets just drop it completely!!! Then we can all go home early.
T
thistle
Guest
Sorry but I have to ask as I haven’t a clue what you mean. What is a jumbo?
S
Shoshana
Guest
A jumbo is a large screen focused on the priest during most of the mass so everyone could see.
Is not the rest of the post understandable?
Is not the rest of the post understandable?
J
Joan_M
Guest
If your priest re-scheduled one of the Masses by 10 or 15 minutes, he would have no excuse to omit the Creed. Saying that he skips the Creed to ensure that he gets to his next church in time is a cop-out. The Creed takes about two minutes to say. If he doesn’t want to re-schedule a Mass, why not cut down his homily by the same two minutes, and stop committing an abuse!
You know, we are not self-appointed liturgy police, and I, for one, am offended by these insults. The laity - everyone of us - are entitled to an authentic liturgy. That means, a liturgy celebrated completely in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down by the Vatican. We should not have to put up with the cuts, inserts, or other changes imposed on us by priest or anyone else.
Once you experience a truly authentic liturgy, any deviation from the norms hits you in the face. We do not hunt for abuses - they assault us.
M
MusicMan
Guest
Joan M said:
If your goal at Mass is to catch every sort of liturgical abuse, then you ARE being the self-appointed liturgy police, and have such criticism coming.
If your goal at Mass is to worship the Lord and the plethora of abuses that are occuring are preventing you from worshiping the Lord, then you’re NOT being the self-appointed liturgy police, and I have no beef with you raising an issue over abuses.
My real concern is that sometimes things occur that have a very good explanation. Some of us who live out in the small towns where we’re forced to share a priest with another or maybe two other towns are just lucky to have Mass said every Sunday, and we’re willing to overlook the occassional skipping of the Creed or the Gloria because Father is stretched so thin making sure that people can at least hear Mass in their own church and in their own town.
Palamas85 gave a pretty snide response to my post. What he’s missing is the immense sacrifice my priest is making to see that the needs of Catholics are met in two parishes in two separate towns. It is because of HIS sacrifice that both parishes still have Mass every Sunday and still have sacraments conveniently administered. My poor priest is being run ragged to try to meet the faith lives of two parishes.
It’s one thing to get upset over abuses due to laziness or innovation, but that’s not always the case. When I see an abuse in my parish because Father is just plain overworked, I don’t get upset with him. I fall on my knees and pray that God will help us increase vocations to the priesthood.
T
totustuusmaria
Guest
We should all know enough to make sure that the consecration is valid. Beyond that we should know enough that we can make reparitions for liturgical abuses that we see or experience. However, with Saint Francis, would should love the Eucharistic Lord enough that we would confidently say concerning a priest who has a concubine: I would recieve the Lord from His venerable hands!
Now, don’t get me wrong, certain liturgical abuses are worse than fornication on the part of the priest, but if the sacrifice is valid and really takes place, the mystery of it should overwhelm us, even if its done in such a way that viels the mystery or breaks liturgical law.
Now, don’t get me wrong, certain liturgical abuses are worse than fornication on the part of the priest, but if the sacrifice is valid and really takes place, the mystery of it should overwhelm us, even if its done in such a way that viels the mystery or breaks liturgical law.
M
m134e5
Guest
We have a right to a valid Mass. We need to make our frustrations known when there are abuses of the liturgy (remembering at all times, of course, what the liturgy is about- and not getting too caught up in what is wrong with it, so long as it is valid).
T
totustuusmaria
Guest
Not only to a valid mass, but also to a licit mass! Every Catholic has a right to hear the Mass according to the mind of the Church!!!
It isn’t too much to ask for what Church law grants us, is it?
M
mosher
Guest
Exactly … I have a right to right worship and there is no valid excuse for it to be celebrated otherwise.
J
johnpaullover
Guest
If a person becomes involved in a struggle for orthodoxy, which leads him to be picky about the mass, then he certainly is not celebrating properly. The mass will lose meaning. Why press the issue? Holding hands during the Pater Noster may be an abuse, but that does not excuse complaining about it to yourself.
S
scriabin
Guest
It’s important to be aware of what makes a mass valid because if it is an invalid mass, it’s really not a “mass” at all (i.e. the bread remains bread; the wine is just wine).
I think what you meant to say is: “why criticize the mass to make sure it is licit?”
Examples of an invalid mass would be trying to use leavened bread for the host; or any other drink besides wine for the blood; consecrating (not just offering, which is okay) both elements at the same time would invalidate the sacrament.
I’m sure there are more and we should know these points better to protect ourselves. For an example of an obscure reason for invalidation would be the case of hosts on the altar but not on the cloth (what’s that called again?) – I can’t remember the rule; but it is important.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Scriabin wrote:
So I again ask johnpaullover to specify what he actually means by his question?
Absolutely correct - and, THIS is what I was attempting to discover precisely what johnpaullover had in HIS mind!
The correct matter (unleavened bread - for Latin Rite Masses - and wine, to which a drop of water is added OR mustum in certain cases), the correct form of words: “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” (or similar variants including “Cup” or “Chalice”) AND the Intention of the priest to “do what the Church does” - that is to effect the transubstantiation of the species - these are required for validity. The non-addition of the drop of water may not invalidate, and the priests’ intention may only be “habitual” - for he may even might be “asleep on his feet” at the very time!
Having a positive contrary intention would, of course, invalidate. being in a personal state of mortal sin would not. Neither would “hosts not on the cloth”! Hosts several or many meters/yards may be included in the priests intention to consecrate. In the same way, wine left in the flagon on the altar and not in the Chalice would certainly NOT be consecrated if it was not included in the priests intention to so consecrate - but WOULD be consecrated if it was intended to be consecrated by the priest.
So I again ask johnpaullover to specify what he actually means by his question?
- Status