How do you explain that liturgical abuse is bad?

[benedictgal]

I’m not “downplaying” liturgical abuses.

I’m simply pointing out that not all irregularities are “liturgical abuses.”

I’m also pointing out that some people simply cannot let go by placing things in God’s hands. They obsess over “abuses” and it’s not healthy, nor is it what God intended.

I’ll also add that I truly wonder if there is any joy in those peoples’ lives who obsess about abuses? I see them at my parish. The grim mouths, the red faces, the clenched jaws and I feel sorry for them. Not because my pastor licitly employs EMsHC but because they lack the grace to leave it in their pastor’s hands and the background to accurately interpret Church documents on the matter.

Most of these people have skimmed a handful of Church documents, surfed forums like this and commiserated in person with people who feel as they do. They chuck any confidence they had in their pastors and bishops for this and I find it terribly sad.

No one finds joy in encountering liturgical abuse, Bull. With all due respect, you seem to have a habit of mischaracterizing those of us who have the courage to point such infractions out.

If the Vatican did not believe that the problem of liturgical abuse was so widespread, it would not have promulgated Ecclesia de Mysterio (1997), which pointed out some serious infractions that the laity and priests were committing, and then followed it up with Redemptionis Sacramentum seven years later.

Furthermore, we also have the writings of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to help interpret why liturgical abuse is bad. He talks a great deal about it in his books and about how people misunderstood the intent of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. Such serious misunderstandings were the unfortunate launch pad for liturgical abuse.

 

[benedictgal]

My apologies, I was not aware of that.

So is the general consensus is that the only liturgical abuse the laity can care about is those that disrespect the Eucharist such as clown masses?

God Bless

No. I would suggest that you read Redemptionis Sacramentum, whose link I posted earlier in this thread. This will help you get a better understanding of what should and what should not be happening during the Mass.

 

[Bull]

My apologies, I was not aware of that.

So is the general consensus is that the only liturgical abuse the laity can care about is those that disrespect the Eucharist such as clown masses?

God Bless

No.

But not all suspected irregularities are “liturgical abuses.”

The other issue is how one acts in the face of an actual abuse. Let’s take one of the gold standards of an actual liturgical abuse, the pouring of the Precious Blood. Let’s say you live and attend Mass in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and they pour the Precious Blood at your parish. How do different Catholics deal with this?

Catholic #1 is largely ignorant of the rules and/or is so focused on the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father that he doesn’t know and/or does not care about the abuse. Is either a bad state to be in? Nope, not really.

Catholic #2 is fairly savvy about the Mass rubrics for a layperson with little formal training. They have actually read, pondered and prayed upon the Cardinal’s announcement in the archdiocesan newspaper (the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm) and they have discussed it at length with their pastor outside of Mass.

While they would like to see the rubric followed to the letter they do concede that there is little room for the 8 chalices necessary for communion at their parish and given that the altar dates from 1876 it’s not going to be replaced anytime soon. More importantly they realize that the cardinal has taken the responsibility for deviating from RS onto his own shoulders and they now realize he is able to do that.

In talking to their pastor they realize that pouring the Precious Blood at Mass will likely not cease until the cardinal retires in 2011 so they are faced with a decision. Either stay and continue to pray that this abuse be eliminated while also asking for the grace necessary so they will not obsess about the matter. Or they can find a parish that does not pour the Precious Blood. They decide to stay and re-double their prayers while silently offering-up their pain and anguish to God.

God listens and in 2011 the newly installed archbishop institutes a true reform of the liturgy, including no pouring the Precious Blood. Is this a bad way to go? No way, THIS is what God intends us to do.

Catholic #3 is also fairly savvy about the Mass rubrics for a layperson with little formal training. When RS was released they immediately sent their pastor a letter demanding the pouring cease. The response from their pastor was negative and included a reference to the aforementioned article. They are stunned. We can have communion under one species! We can get a bigger altar! What is this nonsense?

Without blinking they wrote to the cardinal. No way do they think the cardinal has this sort of power/responsibility within the Church and they have their interpretations of Church documents to prove it! Their letter is answered with a boiler-plate letter (CCed to their pastor) stating that the pastor had been given approval to pour the Precious Blood and that it was going to be left in his hands.

With growing anger and bitterness their next letter gets mailed to the Papal Nuncio’s office who sends it back to the Cardinal’s office who sends it to the pastor who sends Catholic #3 a dryer and colder version of his first letter.

Enough is enough! After all RS demands we take action! This time their letter goes to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome! They are bitterly astonished to see the response is very similar to the one above.

Fed-up they finally switch parishes to a tiny one largely made up of people sharing their mindset. They spend a great deal of time bitterly discussing “liturgical abuses” and other problems they perceive with the Church. There is little joy at their new parish and it really begins to sap their spirituality.

Is this a good way to go? Nope! It’s not what God intends. They have effectively placed their own pride (their understanding of the rubrics and how the Church operates) ahead of the Magisterium itself. THEY know better than anyone else in the chain by golly and they are more than happy to tell anyone that will listen.

By the time 2011 rolls around they are separated from the Church and now attend some sort of chapel. When the cardinal retires and they read of liturgical reforms in the secular paper all they can feel is bitterness and anger.

 

[benedictgal]

No.

But not all suspected irregularities are “liturgical abuses.”

As I read your rather lengthy post, I believe that you are really creating scenarios that are not based on reality. You tend to trivialize things and heap criticism on people who have studied these matters and who genuinely love the Church.

The fact of the matter remains that we are under the guidelines established by Redemptionis Sacramentum in tandem with the GIRM. If legitimate causes for concern arise, it is the right of the Catholic faithful to first charitably discuss these matters with their priest. If nothing is resolved, then, they go up to the bishop and then, as a last resort, to Rome.

You also seem to forget that obedience flows both ways. Just as the faithful are expected to obey their priests and bishops in matters of faith and morals, the priests and bishops, too, for their part (and this includes Cardinals, Bull), are to obey the Holy Father (through the appropriate Curial offices by which he exercises his authority, in this case, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments). A bishop does not have carte blanche over the Mass. He has some authority to make modifications, but, it is not absolute.

Incidentally, I have visited parish churches older than 1876 and have not seen an original altar that fits your description. I did visit the chapel at St. Louis University in St. Louis, MO, but, that altar was fairly modern and did not appear to be original to the building. Our own Cathedral has a huge altar, as do the three churches that are its contemporaries down here. Even the churches across the Rio Grande have huge altars. Thus, the altar in your example was probably a new, renovated one.

 

[Newbie2]

Good post, Bull.

I think we also need to keep in mind that “abuses”, sort of by definition (or at least ***my ***definition ) are purposeful i.e. I know about the rubrics and am willfully circumventing them vs. Oops, didn’t think that was that big of a deal, especially when we are discussing and there is criticism of a layperson’s participation in such abuses.

As well, we can wave documents in people’s faces all day, priests and bishops included, and unless they are disposed to follow their bishop’s or the vatican’s lead, they simply aren’t going to change.

I guess the knee-jerk “Abuse!, Abuse!” reaction to an irregularity concerns me more in some cases than the irregularity itself.

 

[Bull]

Good post, Bull.

I think we also need to keep in mind that “abuses”, sort of by definition (or at least ***my ***definition ) are purposeful i.e. I know about the rubrics and am willfully circumventing them vs. Oops, didn’t think that was that big of a deal, especially when we are discussing and there is criticism of a layperson’s participation in such abuses.

As well, we can wave documents in people’s faces all day, priests and bishops included, and unless they are disposed to follow their bishop’s or the vatican’s lead, they simply aren’t going to change.

I guess the knee-jerk “Abuse!, Abuse!” reaction to an irregularity concerns me more in some cases than the irregularity itself.

Let’s take the pouring of the Precious Blood in the Archdiocese of LA again. Yes, the Cardinal and his staff have read (and understand) the current GIRM, RS, etc.

I can guess for a moment and suggest that the cardinal probably doesn’t see an increase (he is a VERY bright and technical man) in the likelihood of profaning the Eucharist given the training that has been completed in that archdiocese (which may well be absent in others), and the gained experience and empirical track-record of using the process for many years in his archdiocese. He might also be concerned about trying to police the process in over 300+ parishes and 50+ cultures/languages.

That information and concern coupled with the real concerns of altar size, etc. listed in his letter might well have led him to the decision. Somewhat like the troops out in the field not doing it precisely per the Pentagon based on the directions of the field general.

The Cardinal also knows it’s within his authority to release such a letter and to take responsibility for its impact. He’s also aware the Holy See is not going to wade-in in such a matter.

Yes we’ll have people screaming “abuse, abuse!!” but that’s really on them and not the Cardinal.

PS: I was at a special Mass last Sunday celebrated by our bishop. He brought his own chalice. A stunningly gorgeous Waterford Crystal chalice. It was filled while sitting on the altar. It was elevated and drank from over the altar. It was purified over the altar. No way was it a “bigger risk” to profaning the Precious Blood than a metal chalice and I think my bishop is bright enough to realize that.

While there is a reason for rubrics, there is also a reason for bishops and one of the most important is to intelligently apply liturgical rubrics.

 

[Cluny]

<<They obsess over “abuses” and it’s not healthy, nor is it what God intended.>>

Considering that I have both health and transportation issues that prevent my attending the Eucharistic Liturgy as frequently as I would like, that means it become a major blessing when I can actually go.

Yes, there are a few things in my parish that I would do differently were it up to me.

But the parish is really about US and not about me.