How strict should one get on the rubrics?

[maryjk]

Perhaps offering to be a server (a thurifer I guess…) during adoration would be a good solution. Saying something like, “Father, I just wanted you to know that if you want some help during exposition, somebody to serve or carry a censer for you, I’d be happy to!” He may jump at the chance!
Again, I can’t imagine how pleased our Lord is that you care so much about him

Great idea. I know that during daily Mass, our priest does not have a server. I would imagine that it would be very difficult to use incense without one.

We need to respect our priests, absolutely. They have Holy Orders, they have special graces, they are consecrated to God and the service of His Church…so yes, kiss a priests hand, bow when he passes, don’t gossip about him, speak to him with reverence…but think of it this way: we expect everyone else to do their job, right? If you’re at a restaurant and the waiter comes to your table and throws down a menu and glass of water without saying a word, you would complain. If you sit in a classroom and the teacher throws a book at you and says “learn it yourself,” you would complain. There’re plenty of examples, but you get the point. Why should we not expect the same thing from our priests? We can respect them and honor them, while at the same time expecting them to do their job, and yes, this includes obeying every “jot and tittle” of the liturgical rubrics for the honor and glory of God, and the edification of the faithful.

Your examples don’t seem to make sense.

It is more like the waiter not having his shirt tucked in. Or a teacher drinking coffee during class. At least in my opinion.

 

[R_C]

RC, I admire your devotion and dedication to the Blessed Sacrament and the desire to see things done properly. I, too, like to see the rubrics followed. However, I am concerned that you are getting into dangerous thinking here with the example you give about the priest and his continuing to use the incense despite difficulty breathing. Do not underestimate how dangerous this can be…]The actions of this priest should not be used as an example for people to follow. The Church does not condone harming yourself performing pious practices. …] it should not be blown out of proportion to the point where you believe it is admirable to put ones self or other in harm’s way to perform it

Thanks. However, in your concern for his health, you missed the point entirely.

When he noticed that this was more than a mere bothering, but it was a serious situation, he ordered the thurifer to step out of the church. He had no intention to continue using incense despite difficulty breathing.

However, when incense was simply bothersome, he did not let this stop him.

The Church does not condone harming yourself performing pious practices, but the Church does condone and endorse mortification. This we have quite forgotten in our modern day, where most things are about feeling good. Since you probably read at least a few biographies of saints, you know that your statement here falls short of the Church’s stance on suffering and sacrifice.

My point being: if someone amidst the congregation is upset by the incense, they may either be Christians and offer the mortification to the Lord, or if this is dangerous as in life-threatening, they may step out of the building and offer the sacrifice of renunciation to the Lord.

I think we need to start re-reading the lives of the saints and the martyrs of the faith, because we have really lost touch with certain critical aspects of the Christian religion. It is written: “They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb. and by the word of their testimony;. love for life did not deter them from death”.

A few months ago or even less we were commemorating Thomas Beckett, bishop, who did not cease the chant of Vespers at the sight of armed men and was thus martyred by them.

St. Tarcisius, acolyte and martyr, was stoned and clubbed to death for refusing to open his hands and let the mob see what he was carrying - the Blessed Sacrament.

Blessed Rolando Rivi was a 14-year old seminarian when the Germans occupied his city. Forced to stay home, he never ceased to wear the cassock, even though he knew that the hatred against religion had lead to the murder of some priests in the region. He was kidnapped by Communist bandits who commanded him to get rid of the habit. He replied: “I can’t do that. This reminds that I belong to Jesus.” So, out of rage, they tear it from him, keep him prisoner for three days, subject to beatings and torture, and finally he was made dig his own grave and was murdered. Whatever was left of his cassock was wrapped like a trophy and exposed at the door of a nearby house.

So please, don’t tell me that health or life must be placed above the love and honor of God. This is not what the Church teaches. Useless, unnecessary harming of oneself for no reason at all? That’s not condemned, that is just foolish and nonsensical. But otherwise, we must keep the example of the martyrs (of which I only mentioned a handful) before our eyes every day, if we want to run as if to win the race.

 

[JM3]

Romans 14:15 For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

 

[digitalpapist]

Great idea. I know that during daily Mass, our priest does not have a server. I would imagine that it would be very difficult to use incense without one.

Your examples don’t seem to make sense.

It is more like the waiter not having his shirt tucked in. Or a teacher drinking coffee during class. At least in my opinion.

It’s not like that at all. Liturgical abuse (as in not adhering to the rubrics) are issues of grave matter. It’s a very serious thing.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is more like the waiter not having his shirt tucked in. Or a teacher drinking coffee during class. At least in my opinion.

No it is not. A priest not wearing his collar on occasion is akin to a waiter not having his shirt tucked in. The Liturgy is sacred, abuse of the Liturgy is abusing the Divine. It is not something trivial, it is something that a priest is forbidden from doing. The Liturgy is not the property of the priest, and he has no right to change or adapt it in any way to make it more akin to his personal outlook, or to suit the congregation (as the Liturgy is not ours either).

Priests who play fast and loose with the liturgy are disrespecting God.

 

[maryjk]

No it is not. A priest not wearing his collar on occasion is akin to a waiter not having his shirt tucked in. The Liturgy is sacred, abuse of the Liturgy is abusing the Divine. It is not something trivial, it is something that a priest is forbidden from doing. The Liturgy is not the property of the priest, and he has no right to change or adapt it in any way to make it more akin to his personal outlook, or to suit the congregation (as the Liturgy is not ours either).

Priests who play fast and loose with the liturgy are disrespecting God.

So you equate a priest not using incense during Exposition as “playing fast and loose.”

Here is the problem.

Every time a priest coughs, twitches or mumbles a word, there are people that scream “abuse.”

Rather than talking to the priest, offering to help or realizing that it could simply be a mistake, people are ready to run to the bishop.

The issue is, that there abuses and there are abuses. They are not all the same. So, a priest that can’t do something because he doesn’t have 3 hands, could be seen as a priest doing his best. Same with a priest that, once in a while, uses the words to the prayers from the last revision.

Whereas a priest, that changes prayers to refer to God as “she,” needs to have a discussion.

 

[Brendan_64]

So you equate a priest not using incense during Exposition as “playing fast and loose.”

For solemn exposition this would be an abuse, but not for simple exposition.

Rather than talking to the priest, offering to help or realizing that it could simply be a mistake, people are ready to run to the bishop.

No. People generally approach the priest first, which is actually what Redemptionis Sacramentum. It is only after this that the bishop ought to be contacted.

The issue is, that there abuses and there are abuses. They are not all the same.

Yes, some abuses are more serious than others, but an abuse is called an abuse for a reason, because it is an abuse of the Liturgy. It is an abuse of the divine.

So, a priest that can’t do something because he doesn’t have 3 hands, could be seen as a priest doing his best.

The rubrics are not impossible to follow. The rubrics are laid out as the way the Church demands that the Liturgy be carried out. The Church does not demand the impossible.

The bottom line is that priests do not have the authority to make changes to the Liturgy, although, sadly, many of them do just that. Many priests seem to want to express their own views on what matters through emphasis on certain parts of the Liturgy and a downplaying of other parts, even to the point of leaving out things that they, personally, view as superfluous (or outdated). This is not permitted by our Church and this is abuse.

. Same with a priest that, once in a while, uses the words to the prayers from the last revision.

Yes everyone can make a simple mistake and to do that is not an abuse. But it is pretty clear when things are being done deliberately, and as I said before, the procedure laid down by the Church is for a lay-person to contact his priest first and then if the matter is not resolved to contact the bishop, or if necessary the CDF (which would have to be a very serious case).

I just don’t see what is so difficult about following the rubrics as laid down by the Church. Why do so many priests seem to have issues with following the rubrics?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Some of the discussion here is sounding very close to what Sadducees might have said in the Synagogues and Temple.

In case anyone cared that is…

 

[Brendan_64]

Some of the discussion here is sounding very close to what Sadducees might have said in the Synagogues and Temple.

In case anyone cared that is…

You might think that, but that is unwarranted.

Occasional, unintentional mistakes are not what this is about, but deliberate changes and omissions to the Liturgy and this is classified as abuse and is not permitted. It is not permitted because a priest is not entitled to adapt the Liturgy in order to make it ‘his own’ or to emphasise (or omit) certain parts of the Liturgy in order to emphasis his personal viewpoint on theological issues. If the Church felt that this was unimportant, then it wouldn’t have produced documents that detail this position and highlight the right of the Catholic faithful to have the Liturgy carried out as the Church intends it to be. The laity are also encouraged to take approach their priest when an abuse occurs, and if this isn’t resolved to take it further, even to the Rome if need be. The Church would not do that if it didn’t view abuses of the Liturgy as matters of seriousness. Was John Paul II encouraging Sadducee-like behaviour when he produced Redemptionis Sacramentum?

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the source and summit of Christian life. It is too important to allow a priest to adapt it (even slightly) to suit his own purposes, or personal viewpoint…

 

[OraLabora]

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the source and summit of Christian life. It is too important to allow a priest to adapt it (even slightly) to suit his own purposes, or personal viewpoint…

Except we’re not talking about the Mass here.

God doesn’t command us to the impossible. If the priest’s breathing difficulties are genuine (many people do have serious asthma), then incense should not be used. It could be something just as simple as the priest not being aware that the rubrics call for a ciborium instead of a monstrance, in this circumstance.

What is amazing is that we should scream “abuse” in the circumstance of making available a beautiful ritual that is so rare these days. I’m fortunate that I live near a Benedictine abbey that does first Friday Benediction and adoration every Sunday and solemnity. Being the great liturgists that they are everything is by the book with incense and Gregorian chant. But it’s a 35 minute drive on mountain roads that aren’t always so great in winter, and Benediction/Adoration is not offered in my local or any neighbouring parish. The OP is very fortunate indeed to have it available in his.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

No it is not. A priest not wearing his collar on occasion is akin to a waiter not having his shirt tucked in. The Liturgy is sacred, abuse of the Liturgy is abusing the Divine. It is not something trivial, it is something that a priest is forbidden from doing. The Liturgy is not the property of the priest, and he has no right to change or adapt it in any way to make it more akin to his personal outlook, or to suit the congregation (as the Liturgy is not ours either).

Priests who play fast and loose with the liturgy are disrespecting God.

So a priest who doesn’t wear the Roman collar at Mass - given that the whole point of the amice is to cover-up the collar and any visible street clothes - is “abusing” God? I have seen numerous priests change out of their rabat before donning their alb.

 

[2HeartsSlave]

You might think that, but that is unwarranted.

Occasional, unintentional mistakes are not what this is about, but deliberate changes and omissions to the Liturgy and this is classified as abuse and is not permitted. It is not permitted because a priest is not entitled to adapt the Liturgy in order to make it ‘his own’ or to emphasise (or omit) certain parts of the Liturgy in order to emphasis his personal viewpoint on theological issues. If the Church felt that this was unimportant, then it wouldn’t have produced documents that detail this position and highlight the right of the Catholic faithful to have the Liturgy carried out as the Church intends it to be. The laity are also encouraged to take approach their priest when an abuse occurs, and if this isn’t resolved to take it further, even to the Rome if need be. The Church would not do that if it didn’t view abuses of the Liturgy as matters of seriousness. Was John Paul II encouraging Sadducee-like behaviour when he produced Redemptionis Sacramentum?

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the source and summit of Christian life. It is too important to allow a priest to adapt it (even slightly) to suit his own purposes, or personal viewpoint…

People who don’t understand or care about what the Mass is don’t care if the rubrics are followed. Expecting them to is like expecting a militant atheist to respect the Blessed Sacrament. Why would they? It’s of no importance to them. At a “celebratory family meal” you don’t pay close attention to your actions; if that’s all the Mass is, then why would you put such importance on every minute detail? If, on the other hand, Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, yeah, what you do is important.

 

[ProVobis]

Brendan 64, that liturgical abuse should not occur goes without saying. However, do realize there were many criticisms of the older rite in the 60’s when it came to being strict. Latin text, so many genuflections, so many crosses, so many bows, too quiet, no eye contact with congregation, and on and on. It seemed to many that part of the Mass reform movement was to get the folks (and liturgical committees) more involved. That may be one of the reasons why so many options are allowed in the newer form. Whether many of the actions of the priest overly exceed what was intended is not a judgement we can make in most cases IMO. That belongs to the bishops mostly; we are always free to contact him if we see something as a definite abuse.

I don’t think I’ve told you what you already don’t know, however.

 

[maryjk]

People who don’t understand or care about what the Mass is don’t care if the rubrics are followed. Expecting them to is like expecting a militant atheist to respect the Blessed Sacrament. Why would they? It’s of no importance to them. At a “celebratory family meal” you don’t pay close attention to your actions; if that’s all the Mass is, then why would you put such importance on every minute detail? If, on the other hand, Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, yeah, what you do is important.

Wow, just wow.

 

[2HeartsSlave]

Wow, just wow.

Do you disagree with this?

 

[maryjk]

Do you disagree with this?

I think there is a difference between someone that watches for every little possible problem and someone who sees a real, true abuse.

And it seems, to me at least, that those that look for every little possible problem figures that if others don’t do the same, well, like you said, don’t understand or care about what the Mass.

For instance, when I read along with the Eucharistic Prayer at Mass, I do it to more deeply understand what is happening on the altar. I don’t do it to see if the priest misses saying a word.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

As best I can tell, Jesus wasn’t all wound up about rubrics all the time.

Matthew 12:*12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”*

Not that rubrics aren’t important, they keep uniformity and consistency. But when we interpret following rubrics as following Christ, we’ve moved beyond Christianity into idolatry. The problem with the religious of Jesus’ time is they mistook following the rules with following God.

While I enjoy incense as much as anyone, even if incense isn’t used Jesus still hears our prayers and still knows we love him and are worshipping him.

PAX

 

[jmcrae]

Surely incense is not to be used in a 24/7 Adoration Chapel?

That sounds rather dangerous, and in a small chapel, extremely uncomfortable.

Incense is typically used during Exposition and also sometimes during Benediction (the starting ritual and the ending ritual) - not during Adoration itself.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Thanks. However, in your concern for his health, you missed the point entirely.

When he noticed that this was more than a mere bothering, but it was a serious situation, he ordered the thurifer to step out of the church. He had no intention to continue using incense despite difficulty breathing.

However, when incense was simply bothersome, he did not let this stop him.

The Church does not condone harming yourself performing pious practices, but the Church does condone and endorse mortification. This we have quite forgotten in our modern day, where most things are about feeling good. Since you probably read at least a few biographies of saints, you know that your statement here falls short of the Church’s stance on suffering and sacrifice.

My point being: if someone amidst the congregation is upset by the incense, they may either be Christians and offer the mortification to the Lord, or if this is dangerous as in life-threatening, they may step out of the building and offer the sacrifice of renunciation to the Lord.

I think we need to start re-reading the lives of the saints and the martyrs of the faith, because we have really lost touch with certain critical aspects of the Christian religion. It is written: “They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb. and by the word of their testimony;. love for life did not deter them from death”.

A few months ago or even less we were commemorating Thomas Beckett, bishop, who did not cease the chant of Vespers at the sight of armed men and was thus martyred by them.

St. Tarcisius, acolyte and martyr, was stoned and clubbed to death for refusing to open his hands and let the mob see what he was carrying - the Blessed Sacrament.

Blessed Rolando Rivi was a 14-year old seminarian when the Germans occupied his city. Forced to stay home, he never ceased to wear the cassock, even though he knew that the hatred against religion had lead to the murder of some priests in the region. He was kidnapped by Communist bandits who commanded him to get rid of the habit. He replied: “I can’t do that. This reminds that I belong to Jesus.” So, out of rage, they tear it from him, keep him prisoner for three days, subject to beatings and torture, and finally he was made dig his own grave and was murdered. Whatever was left of his cassock was wrapped like a trophy and exposed at the door of a nearby house.

So please, don’t tell me that health or life must be placed above the love and honor of God. This is not what the Church teaches. Useless, unnecessary harming of oneself for no reason at all? That’s not condemned, that is just foolish and nonsensical. But otherwise, we must keep the example of the martyrs (of which I only mentioned a handful) before our eyes every day, if we want to run as if to win the race.

This is the last I am going to say on the subject–ever. There is a vast difference between martyrdom and a priest choking himself on incense because it is in the rubrics. Get real. You have highly overexaggerated things to the point where it is almost nonsensical. Your comparison is insulting to the real suffering and martyrdom of these people.

And don’t even imply that people who do not agree with your hysterical attitude are less Catholic or less holy than they should be or don’t understand the value of sacrifice and suffering. Goodbye. God bless you.

 

[2HeartsSlave]

Well apparently a concerned Catholic can’t voice his concern for due reverence in the presence of God on earth without being attacked. This is a shame.