Just got home from Mass :(

[bejonama]

I attended the vigil at what is my geographical parish(I’m in aust). There is a new priest there and after attending daily Mass there one day last week and chatting to him I had hopes that the abuses would have atleast reduced. Sadly I was wrong

We greeted each other after the entrance, looking around, smiling introducing ourselves, well I politely smiled at some people. Acclamations had words I’d never heard before. The people who carried forward the gifts went to the sides of the altar and acted as altar servers. The doxology was said by all. The em’s went up too early, then after the consecration one of them poured wine? precious blood ? from a glass carafe into 4 chalices, I didn’t notice where the carafe was during the consecration. Father handed each of the four em’s a host and they each consumed at the same time he did. Many people, at least 30% self intincted(sp?). We sang gather us in and something else that had been adjusted to not be sexist.

I didn’t go to communion, I was too distracted. I think I need to confess all my uncharitable thoughts!!! I’ll be going to Mass again tomorrow!

 

[jbuck919]

Oh come now, you wouldn’t want them to change what they were doing just because it has always been wrong, would you? Think of all the people who were there who would stop coming if they did it right.

 

[laszlo]

Please meditate:

Was Jesus Christ bodily present on that Mass, or not?

If yes, what is more important: He, or some breaking of the rubrics.

One point to the meditation: The pharisee told themselves similar stories like you, how Jesus broke the most honored Mosaic Law repeatedly. Some of them definitely asked the rethoric question: do I break the golden rule (am I uncharitable) if I point out His transgressions?

My opinion is, that if you dislike the mass, try to change or take the pain and find a Mass elsewhere, where it fits your expectations. I did that. But do not talk for outsiders negatively about something what is the real presence of Our Lord.

Congratulations to your 14 children let my God bless you.

 

[Phemie]

The people who carried forward the gifts went to the sides of the altar and acted as altar servers.

Do you mean he had them come to the altar and took the gifts from them, first the bread and said the Prayer over the bread, then the wine and said the prayer over the wine?

The Archbishop Emeritus who relieved in our parish had the gifts presented that way. It took those who brought up the gifts by surprise but in fact if you read the GIRM, it’s the way it’s supposed to be done.

 

[corsair]

I would not hesitate to find another parish. Why risk your soul because of some irreverent people.

 

[bejonama]

Do you mean he had them come to the altar and took the gifts from them, first the bread and said the Prayer over the bread, then the wine and said the prayer over the wine?

The Archbishop Emeritus who relieved in our parish had the gifts presented that way. It took those who brought up the gifts by surprise but in fact if you read the GIRM, it’s the way it’s supposed to be done.

That is interesting, I have only ever seen it happen there and concluded, that because of all the other abuses, that it was probably also illicit. It was the thing that bothered me least int list

 

[Phemie]

That is interesting, I have only ever seen it happen there and concluded, that because of all the other abuses, that it was probably also illicit. It was the thing that bothered me least int list

I have to apologize, I was wrong. While it is how the Archbishop did it, and it is how I was taught in a class on Liturgy, the GIRM is a little confusing. In one instance it says that the priest places the offerings on the altar, but in the other it says ‘At the altar the priest accepts the paten with the bread’ then says “After this, as the minister presents the cruets”. I wonder what the Latin actually says.

 

[bejonama]

Please meditate:*

Was Jesus Christ bodily present on that Mass, or not?

If yes, what is more important: He, or some breaking of the rubrics.

He, of course! But He was, I’m my opinion, not given due reverence. I assure you that I I still acknowledged His true presence

*One point to the meditation: The pharisee told themselves similar stories like you, how Jesus broke the most honored Mosaic Law repeatedly. Some of them definitely asked the rethoric question: do I break the golden rule (am I uncharitable) if I point out His transgressions?
*I don’t quite understand your point here. This was not Jesus breaking the mosaic law, this parish is not God revealed. I did struggle with my uncharitable thoughts. I will avoid that occasion of sin in the future\B]

My opinion is, that if you dislike the mass, try to change or take the pain and find a Mass elsewhere, where it fits your expectations. I did that. But do not talk for outsiders negatively about something what is the real presence of Our Lord.
** I usually don’t attend this Mass, I went there last night in the hopes that there had been some lessening of the abuses, I had spoken to the new priest and he seemed to want to bring things back to where they should be and it is my geographical parish and has been for 17 years. *I am sad for the parish, it is run by a strong group lay people who will resist change, well the right sort of change, they’re all for the wrong sort of change. I doubt very much that most of the parishioners even realise that they are doing the ‘wrong’ thing. My best friend did rcia there and confession/reconciliation wasn’t even mentioned (she’d been baptised Anglican) and it was only that I as her sponsor, encouraged her to go that she went before her first communion and confirmation. *

If people don’t speak about it, how will there be change? How can there be change unless it is spoken about? Surely we shouldn’t have to ‘take the pain’ to find a Mass elsewhere, when the Church is universal, and should have the same Mass everywhere! Sadly I am weak and rather than change I will return to the parish I have called home for many years. It’s got it’s own issues but none of outright flaunting of the girm.

I will work on my own charity ****

Congratulations to your 14 children let my God bless you.
Thankyou, may our God bless you too

 

[MarkThompson]

I have to apologize, I was wrong. While it is how the Archbishop did it, and it is how I was taught in a class on Liturgy, the GIRM is a little confusing. In one instance it says that the priest places the offerings on the altar, but in the other it says [1]‘At the altar the priest accepts the paten with the bread’ then says [2]“After this, as the minister presents the cruets”. I wonder what the Latin actually says.

(1) “Sacerdos, ad altare, accipit patenam cum pane . . . .” (GIRM 141)

The verb accipio means “accept, take, get possession of, receive.” It doesn’t necessarily imply that he receives it from someone; if he simply took up the paten from the altar, that would fit accipio.

(2) “Postea, sacerdos stans ad latus altaris, infundit vinum et parum aquae in calicem, dicens secreto: Per huius aquae, ministro urceolos porrigente.” (GIRM 142)

A literal translation would run, "Afterwards, the priest standing at the side of the altar pours the wine and a little water into the chalice, saying secretly: *Through this water’s *, as the minister proffers the cruets." The verb here is porrigo, which means “hold forth, stretch out, extend, present,” etc.

 

[anonymous_in_fl]

I am not a theologian nor a liturgist, but I was under the impression that intinction was expressly prohiblited.

If it were me, I’d be looking for another parish.

 

[Phemie]

I am not a theologian nor a liturgist, but I was under the impression that intinction was expressly prohiblited.

If it were me, I’d be looking for another parish.

Having the communicant intinct his Host in the Precious Blood is expressly forbidden but you’d be surprised at how many parishes I’ve been in where that was the only way to receive Communion under both species. I sincerely hope that practice is a thing of the past but I know that, in Canada, Redemptionis Sacramentum, which specifically forbids the practice, hasn’t even been discussed, let alone implemented.

 

[CharlotteMary]

Hi everyone,

I have been a long term reader of Catholic Answers forums but have never posted anything until today. My apologies for coming to this discussion a couple of months late!

Surely we cannot stand by or just move parish when Our Lord is so cruelly disrespected in the Eucharist by a handful of priests who have grown cold in their faith and who abuse the liturgy and Christ in the process!?

Where is the charity in leaving less informed parishioners prey to these wolves in sheep’s clothing? Jesus is THE example of charity- he overturned tables and made a whip when people were disrespecting The Father in the Temple (John 2:15)- how can we not be filled with that same burning love for God (and for the sinners!)?

The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord is present at mass and we let people disrespect Him by using a glass carafe, tampering with words or innumerable other offences?? it is nowhere near comparable to Jesus not observing the Sabbath!
Charity is Love not political correctness or protecting feelings at the cost of compromising the Truth.

Perhaps Jesus is asking you to defend Him by letting you witness such a disturbing service. Its hard- but its right, and important that you are prepared to fight for our Lord (Ephesians 6:10+ helps me fire up). (btw as a fellow Australian woman I know how countercultural it is to ‘make a fuss’ or ‘complain’, you should see some of the inedible meals I get served up at restaurants that I cordially accept without complaint!)

Indeed, not only must we take a stand for the sake of our vulnerable brothers and sisters in Christ, or for Christ Himself, but for the sake of that priest or ‘lay people resistant to change’ too. We are called to rebuke other Christians when they sin (Luke 17:3) and to preach the good news- the truth- to everyone! Frankly, Saul looked pretty set in his ways too and now look at him as Paul! If you love someone you don’t want them to persist in sin and risk their own and others eternity, do you?

The way I found this thread was because I witnessed an atrocious mass the other day (not my normal parish) with numerous offences and was searching for some guidance as to what to do. I talked to my local priest today, who (like most priests, thank you God) is holy, reverent and loves Jesus.

His concrete advice: Write a letter detailing your experience of the mass and how it has impacted you. Be as specific as you can (if you are unsure of the details go to the church again- armed with a guarded heart and clear head- and write down the offences). Send copies of that letter to the priest, his bishop, the papal nuncio and the cardinal (well at least in Australia that is what he said to do). If you feel this is too drastic at least write to the priest and his bishop.

Then you can/should leave the parish and pray for that priest and everyone in that parish!!

God Bless!!

 

[benedictgal]

Please meditate:

Was Jesus Christ bodily present on that Mass, or not?

If yes, what is more important: He, or some breaking of the rubrics.

One point to the meditation: The pharisee told themselves similar stories like you, how Jesus broke the most honored Mosaic Law repeatedly. Some of them definitely asked the rethoric question: do I break the golden rule (am I uncharitable) if I point out His transgressions?

My opinion is, that if you dislike the mass, try to change or take the pain and find a Mass elsewhere, where it fits your expectations. I did that. But do not talk for outsiders negatively about something what is the real presence of Our Lord.

Congratulations to your 14 children let my God bless you.

Actually, what the OP witnessed were serious violations of liturgical law. [edited] The rubrics [edited] do matter. In fact, they mattered to Jesus so much so that he did not hesitate to pull out the whips when he drove the money changers and vendors out of the Temple for violating the sacred space of rpayer reserved for the Gentiles.

I would suggest that the OP document everything she witnessed and then send a letter to the bishop. If the bishop does not respond within a reasonable time, then, the complaints need to be directed to the CDWDS.

 

[Brendan]

106 - the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are pitchers, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

114 - The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand

117 - Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily.

We can see that the Vatican has specifically prohibited many of the actions that OP has listed.

Two of those ( the pouring of the Eucharist and the glass chalices) are specifically listed as being grave abuses.

1. Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.

We also have a responsiblity to report, such abuses

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

1. In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

If we do not report those abuses, we become disobedient to the instructions that the Vatican have given to us

 

[baltobetsy]

If these irregularities have been in place for a long time, it is not reasonable to expect that a new priest just arriving at the parish will correct everything all at once. I recall another thread here where the bishop advised a faithful new pastor to go slowly correcting the problems in his parish. If the pastor alienates the congregation, he will be left celebrating Mass perfectly in an empty room. Please give the priest a chance.

 

[jpjd]

Actually, what the OP witnessed were serious violations of liturgical law. [edited] The rubrics [edited] do matter. In fact, they mattered to Jesus so much so that he did not hesitate to pull out the whips when he drove the money changers and vendors out of the Temple for violating the sacred space of rpayer reserved for the Gentiles.

I would suggest that the OP document everything she witnessed and then send a letter to the bishop. If the bishop does not respond within a reasonable time, then, the complaints need to be directed to the CDWDS.

You skipped the first step, Benedictgal. FIRST, the OP should schedule a meeting with the priest. They should go over everything she has a question about. She should come prepared with the documentation of the proper rubrics, and then ask him if he plans to follow them now that the matter has been brought to his attention. THEN if he does not incorporate the necessary changes in subsequent Masses, she should go to the Bishop.

KEEP IN MIND, as baltobetsy said, IT TAKES TIME TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES, and this priest is new to the parish. At the very least he needs to educate the liturgy committee, re-train the servers and EMHCs, and formulate how to best approach that and schedule the meetings to do it. Give the priest a chance!

 

[benedictgal]

You skipped the first step, Benedictgal. FIRST, the OP should schedule a meeting with the priest. They should go over everything she has a question about. She should come prepared with the documentation of the proper rubrics, and then ask him if he plans to follow them now that the matter has been brought to his attention. THEN if he does not incorporate the necessary changes in subsequent Masses, she should go to the Bishop.

KEEP IN MIND, as baltobetsy said, IT TAKES TIME TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES, and this priest is new to the parish. At the very least he needs to educate the liturgy committee, re-train the servers and EMHCs, and formulate how to best approach that and schedule the meetings to do it. Give the priest a chance!

Redemptionis Sacramentum indicates that the first point of contact is the Bishop. Now, the OP did mention that she met with the priest. Here is what RS lays out:

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters
   [183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism.

[184.] **Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. **This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

Abuses, especially the grave ones encountered by the OP, need to be corrected as quickly as possible, as these are reprobate.

 

[jpjd]

The OP said she “chatted” with the priest. I may wrong, but I assumed that “chat” meant social, getting-to-know you chit-chat, from which she sized him up and felt he would be the type to celebrate a liturgically correct Mass. I personally would not use the term “chat” to mean a serious conversation about liturgical rubrics. But as I said, I may be wrong.

Regarding the RS, I think the Church allows us to give the respect due to a priest (as we should with anyone with whom one may have a complaint) to approach him first before discussing his errors with his boss. Your approach presumes the priest to be indifferent at best, malicious at worst. It would do no harm whatsoever, and could do a lot of goodwill, to approach the priest first. Couldn’t it possibly be the case that the priest would indeed like make changes, but simply has not had time to put things in motion? To not give him a chance first would undoubtedly create ill will, and what a way to treat our priests.

 

[benedictgal]

The OP said she “chatted” with the priest. I may wrong, but I assumed that “chat” meant social, getting-to-know you chit-chat, from which she sized him up and felt he would be the type to celebrate a liturgically correct Mass. I personally would not use the term “chat” to mean a serious conversation about liturgical rubrics. But as I said, I may be wrong.

Regarding the RS, I think the Church allows us to give the respect due to a priest (as we should with anyone with whom one may have a complaint) to approach him first before discussing his errors with his boss. Your approach presumes the priest to be indifferent at best, malicious at worst. It would do no harm whatsoever, and could do a lot of goodwill, to approach the priest first. Couldn’t it possibly be the case that the priest would indeed like make changes, but simply has not had time to put things in motion? To not give him a chance first would undoubtedly create ill will, and what a way to treat our priests.

All that I am outlying and restating is simply what Redemptionis Sacramentum says. The bishop is the one repsonsible for the liturgical life in his diocese. Let me give you an example. When there was a serious issue of liturgical abuse in our Cathedral, I had addressed it with the administrator (long before I knew about RS). Nthing happened. At a subsequent meeting with the bishop, he reminded me that he was the pastor of the Cathedral, not the administrator. Unfortunately, nothing happened and the abuse has persisted, even though the administration has changed hands thrice.

All that I am saying is that according to RS, the first point of reference is the bishop. He is the one who is supposed to ensure the liturgical integrity of the Masses celebrated in his diocese.

 

[Frosty]

All that I am outlying and restating is simply what Redemptionis Sacramentum says. The bishop is the one repsonsible for the liturgical life in his diocese. Let me give you an example. When there was a serious issue of liturgical abuse in our Cathedral, I had addressed it with the administrator (long before I knew about RS). Nthing happened. At a subsequent meeting with the bishop, he reminded me that he was the pastor of the Cathedral, not the administrator. Unfortunately, nothing happened and the abuse has persisted, even though the administration has changed hands thrice.

All that I am saying is that according to RS, the first point of reference is the bishop. He is the one who is supposed to ensure the liturgical integrity of the Masses celebrated in his diocese.

So that I understand what you are saying . . . . if a priest did not say the Gloria at Mass yesterday, May3, instead of going to him and politely asking him why he did not do so, we should immediately write a letter to the Bishop claiming a liturgical abuse. Is that correct or have I misunderstood?