Is this liturgical abuse?

[TheMc]

I don’t have a Children’s Lectionary handy but if I remember from years past I believe “baby clothes” is the word used. So there would not have been “paraphrased” readings since approved readings were used.

The bigger problem I see is if it is valid to assume that the majority of the people present at the Children’s Mass would, in fact, be children. Does anyone know if a priest is supposed to change plans for readings and Mass parts if a Mass is “planned” to be for a children’s majority but when Mass begins it becomes obvious that more adults are present than children?

At least for my parish it is the intent that the majority of the attendees would be children. But the reality is that the children are typically outnumbered by their parents, their grandparents, and all the people who just want to get Mass out of the way so they can proceed on to their other Christmas activities. I’m not sure how it works out in recent years since we have an “overflow Mass” in the Parish Center which starts 15 minutes after the Children’s Mass. I know some parishioners who *plan *to attend this Mass because it is not advertized to the public as are the regularly scheduled Christmas Masses.

Whoops, forgot about the children’s lectionary. Tacky, but licit. Mea culpa.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

This year at our 4:30 Christmas Eve Mass, which is called the children’s mass because the children’s choir sings, our pastor chose to read the gospel from the children’s liturgy book. It paraphrased the gospel, and used words like “baby clothes” instead of swaddling clothing. He also chose the same version of the gospel story at last year’s mass.

Last year, for his homily at this mass, he spoke for all of 2 minutes, and basically said, let’s enjoy Christmas and thanks for coming. This year, he spoke for about 1 minute and then allowed our director of education read a children’s book, which was only somewhat religious in nature, and written for children about 5 yrs old.

Condisering that many people only come to church on Christmas and Easter, I thought that our pastor was potentially repelling anyone who might have been considering joining our church or converting to our faith. His choices definintely turned me off… Our church is packed with people at this mass, but maybe 5% of those there were children…

The question is, if he was committing some kind of liturgical abuse, should I bring it up with him?

In my parish, the 5:30 pm Mass on Christmas Eve is a Children’s Mass, not because the children’s choir sings, but becaue the liturgy is geared towards families with small children. Those with small children are encouraged to attend that Mass, so that the they won’t cry during the 8pm and Midnight Mass because they are sleepy. There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[promethius]

He simply wanted to know if it was liturgical abuse or not which is a legitimate question… Many liturgical abuses have been taking place after Vatican II due to poor catechesis. The new translation of the Novus Ordo Mass in English is only a small step in the right direction but there is still a lot that has to be done.

God love you
Pax Christi

That is a wonderful thought, and there are right and wrong ways to ask about liturgical abuses. A right way might look like “I attended a childrens’ mass and was wondering if X practice was allowed under the respective rubrics”. A less acceptable and gun down the priest way would look a bit more like: “Condisering that many people only come to church on Christmas and Easter, I thought that our pastor was potentially repelling anyone who might have been considering joining our church or converting to our faith”

All I’m saying is that going to a children’s mass where one obviously does not understand what is allowed or not and then gunning the priest down as repelling CE catholics is not the proper way to go about this sort of inquiry.
[edited]

 

[Filii_Dei]

It not permitted for anyone other than a deacon or higher to give a speech during the homily, as explicitly set out by the Holy Father in Redemptonis Sacramentum.

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.

In particular, nobody can use the excuse of a “custom”, because:

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

However, as regards the content of his homily, somewhat more latitude is given.

[67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church. It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.

One doesn’t need the above quotation to know that a homily needs to relate itself to Church teaching, but for now, I shall refuse comment on his homily until I’m given a copy of it to read and judge for myself.

However, what I don’t understand, is that even if he had to read that book for the homily, why won’t the priest read it himself, instead of delegating it to a layperson? I’m sure a book for five-year olds isn’t that linguistically challenging.

 

[Anna_Claire]

yes that is precisely my point. There should not be any threads labelled “liturgical abuse” that do not deal with real liturgical abuse. I think we are both on the same pace.

We can’t run around like Gomer Pyle “citizen’s arrest, citizen’s arrest” hurling “litugical abuse” at every thing we see in church that we are unfamiliar with.

Good that we are on the same page! My issue with your post was that that you said there is “plenty” of liturgical abuse. The truth is that there isn’t! Sorry for any misunderstanding.