Did I miss something?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catharina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldier_Of_God said:
This is not indicative of any of the parishes I’ve been. Is this normal behavior for this parish? We have rubrics so that liturgical abuse doesn’t run rampant within the Church. I’m not advocating rigid legalism but if liturgical abuse goes** to far**, it can impact the validity of sacraments. Writing to the deacon for clarification is a good idea as I share your concern.
Click to expand...
If liturgical abuse goes too far? I wonder, then, what is the right amount of liturgical abuse?
puzzleannie said:
the young lady did not give a homily, the deacon did, which is permissible if the bishop allows. The young lady was asked to give a testimony on her stewardship, which she did. It was NOT a homily both because she did not give a teaching based on the readings, and because she is not ordained, so by definition anything she said is not a homily. There probably was a valid homily, but you don’t know, because you left. I hope you made up for your Mass obligation later in the day. It is not the fault either of the lady or the deacon if the testimony came at the time and place for the homily, rather than from another location before Mass or after communion. So exactly to whom were you expressing your outrage by leaving?
Click to expand...
I think this is a really poor argument. If a deacon or priests gets to “count” as a homily his introduction of the person *really *doing the speaking, what does “homily” even mean? This is just an example of clergy trying to get around the rules. There is NO reason the speaker couldn’t have given her testimony after the dismissal before a second collection (or hey, just delay the first one until then if there’s only one). One can only assume the clergy either 1) don’t know about the rubrics, 2) know but don’t care about the rubrics, or 3) couldn’t be bothered to write a real homily for the weekend.

In any case, its not allowed!
 
A question for the OP: given your belief that Christ himself, shorty after the sermon, becomes physically present in a properly conducted Mass, had you concluded that he, too, would absent himself because of the comments by the woman with kindergarten experience? Or did you conclude that he would become present, but would prefer it if you were not there?
 
PrayForMeStJude said:
If liturgical abuse goes too far? I wonder, then, what is the right amount of liturgical abuse?

I think this is a really poor argument. If a deacon or priests gets to “count” as a homily his introduction of the person *really *doing the speaking, what does “homily” even mean? This is just an example of clergy trying to get around the rules. There is NO reason the speaker couldn’t have given her testimony after the dismissal before a second collection (or hey, just delay the first one until then if there’s only one). One can only assume the clergy either 1) don’t know about the rubrics, 2) know but don’t care about the rubrics, or 3) couldn’t be bothered to write a real homily for the weekend.

In any case, its not allowed!
Click to expand...
When you say it’s not allowed, what is your litugical or clergical training?
You assumtion about the clergy is also very uniformed.
First, the preist or deacon have great leeway in giving their homily. The rubic says is the the homily is to be given by clergy, it should reflect on the readings of the day, it can also give catichism or instruction, say for the revisions of the missal.
The OP does not say how long the teacher spoke, it is obvious that the deacon invited her to speak in the mist of his homily apparently to make a point.
Since all we have is the OP objection, we cannot know exactly the circumstances involed.
In any event, the deacon did nothing wrong. If the OP has a problem, she need to address it directly to the deacon. I’m certain he would address her concerns. It is insulting to the deacon as a member of clergy to first assume he is in error and then second to report him. The OP is showing a misunderstanding of the role of the deacon and the relationship between the deacon and the pastor.
The question is also what is the end result that the OP is looking for. Since he did nothing wrong, nothing will happen.
 
promethius said:
i’m not denying that what you saw was unusual. I’m merely stating that it’s not unacceptable (granted i don’t know the specifics of exactly what was said and when). What is usual is not always acceptable, and what is acceptable is not always usual… A prime example of this is holding hands during the “our father” … I remember being shocked that this very “usual” practice was not acceptable.

In other words, don’t rely on your memory as a determining factor in what is allowable vs. Abusive at mass. There is documentation for that which can be used to objectively (and charitably) determine what is acceptable.
Click to expand...
so, at last, you’re saying:
Yes, it is unusual.
Yes, it can be acceptable.

Thanks for answering.
 
Hokomai said:
A question for the OP: given your belief that Christ himself, shorty after the sermon, becomes physically present in a properly conducted Mass, had you concluded that he, too, would absent himself because of the comments by the woman with kindergarten experience? Or did you conclude that he would become present, but would prefer it if you were not there?
Click to expand...
As you know quite well,
Chist had to need NO follow any rubrics.

What a question!
 
FAB said:
When you say it’s not allowed, what is your litugical or clergical training?
You assumtion about the clergy is also very uniformed.
First, the preist or deacon have great leeway in giving their homily. The rubic says is the the homily is to be given by clergy, it should reflect on the readings of the day, it can also give catichism or instruction, say for the revisions of the missal.
The OP does not say how long the teacher spoke, it is obvious that the deacon invited her to speak in the mist of his homily apparently to make a point.
Since all we have is the OP objection, we cannot know exactly the circumstances involed.
In any event, the deacon did nothing wrong. If the OP has a problem, she need to address it directly to the deacon. I’m certain he would address her concerns. It is insulting to the deacon as a member of clergy to first assume he is in error and then second to report him. The OP is showing a misunderstanding of the role of the deacon and the relationship between the deacon and the pastor.
The question is also what is the end result that the OP is looking for. Since he did nothing wrong, nothing will happen.
Click to expand...
Report him? Report the deacon?

Ah, no. I would ask the pastor about this practice.
 
catharina said:
It’s likely that I did not understand your question.
Perhaps you can state it in another way?
Click to expand...
I am interested in the nature of belief. The OP believes that Christ becomes physically preset at the consecration. The OP left a Mass before this because a woman spoke during the homily. I understand the OP thought that this was a liturgical abuse. But to leave, give the belief about the consecration, seems to me to require explanation. The only two possible explanations I could think of was 1) the belief that the consecration would not take place or 2) the belief that although Christ himself would become physcially present despite the ‘abuse’, He would prefer the OP to leave. So I asked which it was.
 
Hokomai said:
I am interested in the nature of belief. The OP believes that Christ becomes physically preset at the consecration. The OP left a Mass before this because a woman spoke during the homily. I understand the OP thought that this was a liturgical abuse. But to leave, give the belief about the consecration, seems to me to require explanation. The only two possible explanations I could think of was 1) the belief that the consecration would not take place or 2) the belief that although Christ himself would become physcially present despite the ‘abuse’, He would prefer the OP to leave. So I asked which it was.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you option 3.

That is this:
I knew I could attend a different Mass later in the day.
In fact, I had my choice of three other available Masses.
I knew that and Christ knows that. That means that I
was not obligated to remain at the Mass in question.
 
FAB said:
Why not just ask the deacon? He is an ordained minster with years of formation. He will give your the explanation.
Click to expand...
I agree. We have a responsibility (according to the Catechism) to ask for clarification from a person before assuming the most negative view of their actions and intentions. To do otherwise is to open ourselves to the sins of calumny and detraction… ESPECIALLY if one were to approach the pastor in the spirit of “I saw this abuse and wondered about it…”.

Why not follow the catechism and ask the deacon first? One can never go wrong by following the teachings of the church on this matter… especially considering, as we know from discussion here, that there was no abuse anyway.
 
promethius said:
I agree. We have a responsibility (according to the Catechism) to ask for clarification from a person before assuming the most negative view of their actions and intentions. **To do otherwise is to open ourselves to the sins of calumny and detraction… ESPECIALLY if one were to approach the pastor in the spirit of “I saw this abuse and wondered about it…”. **

Why not follow the catechism and ask the deacon first? One can never go wrong by following the teachings of the church on this matter… especially considering, as we know from discussion here, that there was no abuse anyway.
Click to expand...
Talk about calumny and detraction … !

I’d ask the pastor about the event -
not accuse ANYONE of abuse.
It’s lots easier to locate a pastor (at
the parish house) than to find any
deacon at his own private home.

PS - it is not I who is throwing
around the word “abuse” - others
have done so.
 
catharina said:
Talk about calumny and detraction … !

I’d ask the pastor about the event -
not accuse ANYONE of abuse.
It’s lots easier to locate a pastor (at
the parish house) than to find any
deacon at his own private home.

PS - it is not I who is throwing
around the word “abuse” - others
have done so.
Click to expand...
You’ll kindly note that when I use the phrase “especially if one…” I am referring to the general case and not to you.

And yes, you never used the term “abuse” specifically. However, you are asking about acceptability of practice (and that which is unacceptable is abusive, and therefore is of the same subject matter).

I’m merely recommending that you, or anyone for that matter, always approach the person in question first in order to understand what happened and why, and not just run directly to the next person in the "chain of command’ first. I’m am doubly recommending this course of action in the general case to those (not you, the general case) who would approach the priest with the assumption of abuse.

Does that clarify for you?
 
What I find “Unusual” is—the lady spoke first. I’m no expert. However, in my area, the priest or the deacon will build the homily around the issue, or give us an introduction to another topic at the end of the homily. Then introduce another speaker for the aforementioned topic.

For instance:

My parish is in the middle of a tithing campaign. Last Sunday, the priest spoke to us about tithing. At the end of the homily; he then introduced one of Parish Finance Council members, who talked about our parish’s financial situation.

Sunday before last, Seminary appeal. First the homily, then Father spoke to us about the great need to financially support seminarians. At the end of the homily, he introduced a seminarian who spoke to us about the seminaries.

P.S. I’ve noticed the word “abuse” comes so quickly to some of us. 😦
 
catharina said:
Talk about calumny and detraction … !

I’d ask the pastor about the event -
not accuse ANYONE of abuse.
It’s lots easier to locate a pastor (at
the parish house) than to find any
deacon at his own private home.

PS - it is not I who is throwing
around the word “abuse” - others
have done so.
Click to expand...
I’m shure it’s easy to get the deacons phone number, e-mail, leave a message with the parish secratary to have him call you.
I have had critiques offered about my homilies, but it seems always to the parish staff, who’s response is as instructed, talk to him yourself. The same reponse my pastor would also give. Otherwise, the critique is not taken seriously.
 
asia53 said:
What I find “Unusual” is—the lady spoke first. I’m no expert. However, in my area, the priest or the deacon will build the homily around the issue, or give us an introduction to another topic at the end of the homily. Then introduce another speaker for the aforementioned topic.

For instance:

**My parish is in the middle of a tithing campaign. Last Sunday, the priest spoke to us about tithing. At the end of the homily; he then introduced one of Parish Finance Council members, who talked about our parish’s financial situation.

Sunday before last, Seminary appeal. First the homily, then Father spoke to us about the great need to financially support seminarians. At the end of the homily, he introduced a seminarian who spoke to us about the seminaries. **

Two perfect examples of good usage!

P.S.** I’ve noticed the word “abuse” comes so quickly to some of us.** 😦
Click to expand...
No kidding!
 
catharina said:
I’ll give you option 3.

That is this:
I knew I could attend a different Mass later in the day.
In fact, I had my choice of three other available Masses.
I knew that and Christ knows that. That means that I
was not obligated to remain at the Mass in question.
Click to expand...
So if Christ himself was willing to attend, why didn’t you stay? It seems to me that “because I did not have to” is not an answer to this. I was not asking whether you felt obligated to remain.
 
Hokomai said:
So if Christ himself was willing to attend, why didn’t you stay? It seems to me that “because I did not have to” is not an answer to this. I was not asking whether you felt obligated to remain.
Click to expand...
Then my own answer does not satisfy you;
still it is my answer. Your logic in this might
lead to my “having” to attend each Mass in
my neighborhood from 7am to 6pm. God’s
command is for me to attend Mass on Sunday.

For the record, since you ar not Christian, the action
of the Consecration does not happen until much later
in the Mass. The homily occurs more “early on.”
 
FAB said:
When you say it’s not allowed, what is your litugical or clergical training?
You assumtion about the clergy is also very uniformed.
First, the preist or deacon have great leeway in giving their homily. The rubic says is the the homily is to be given by clergy, it should reflect on the readings of the day, it can also give catichism or instruction, say for the revisions of the missal.
The OP does not say how long the teacher spoke, it is obvious that the deacon invited her to speak in the mist of his homily apparently to make a point.
Since all we have is the OP objection, we cannot know exactly the circumstances involed.
In any event, the deacon did nothing wrong. If the OP has a problem, she need to address it directly to the deacon. I’m certain he would address her concerns. It is insulting to the deacon as a member of clergy to first assume he is in error and then second to report him. The OP is showing a misunderstanding of the role of the deacon and the relationship between the deacon and the pastor.
The question is also what is the end result that the OP is looking for. Since he did nothing wrong, nothing will happen.
Click to expand...
You do realize, of course, that reading rubrics has nothing to do with liturgical training? Its amazing that these liberal priests with so much training still can’t figure out how to just read, isn’t it?

The simple fact is this practice is. not. allowed. There really is nothing else to say. The deacon in this instance DID do something wrong.

It is especially abusive considering the simple solution is just to have the teacher make her presentation at an appropriate time, such as after mass. A homily can only be given by a clergyman, and this teacher discussing her experience or ideas simply isn’t a homily. I’m sure people would be happy to hear her at the appropriate time.

While perhaps walking out over this isn’t a very appropriate response, it is good that the OP was able to see a incorrect practice and was scandalized by it. Every baptized Catholic has a RIGHT to proper liturgy, and when clergy disregard the proper rules of the liturgy they violate the rights of the faithful. Such abuse is so prevalent that many of us have just become desensitized to it. Even worse, however, are people such as yourself who actively apologize for and promote these abusive practices which only hurt the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top