Just got home from Mass :(

[benedictgal]

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?

I do not know if you meant this as sarcasm. There could be a number of reasons why the Gloria was omitted (simply forgot, emergency). What I am referring to are the grave matters brought up by the OP. RS has been around for nearly seven years now The GIRM has been around longer. Priests and those who help them should avail themselves of these documents, read them and heed them.

The bishop is charged with ensuring the liturgical integrity of his diocese. The priests receive their faculties from him. These grave matters need to be addressed to the bishop.

 

[jpjd]

Benedictgal, may I respectfully say that this is your opinion. My opinion is that the place to start is with the priest. It’s only fair to him and respectful as well. Remember, this is a case of a new priest coming into the parish, and IT DOES TAKE TIME to address these issues. As I mentioned previously, the people involved need to be educated and re-trained.

When meeting with the priest, IF you get indifference or opposition, THEN you take it to the Bishop per the RS.

I find this attitude of jumping to the Bishop as the first response incredibly condescending and insulting to priests.

 

[Bluegoat]

Benedictgal, may I respectfully say that this is your opinion. My opinion is that the place to start is with the priest. It’s only fair to him and respectful as well. Remember, this is a case of a new priest coming into the parish, and IT DOES TAKE TIME to address these issues. As I mentioned previously, the people involved need to be educated and re-trained.

When meeting with the priest, IF you get indifference or opposition, THEN you take it to the Bishop per the RS.

I find this attitude of jumping to the Bishop as the first response incredibly condescending and insulting to priests.

It’s just rude at a human level, you don’t go above someone’s head unless you speak to them first unless you think they are likely to bash you on the head and stuff you in a closet or some such thing.

It also lacks humility - perhaps the Bishop and the priest have already spoken and the bishop has said to make changes slowly, or at least knows how the priest intends to proceed.

Going to the Bishop about the brand new priest, without ever having spoken to him, is not going to help anything. (Not to mention the fact that the bishop being in charge of liturgical norms is not actually saying you go to him first with any problem.)

 

[Sheadad]

Benedictgal, may I respectfully say that this is your opinion. My opinion is that the place to start is with the priest. It’s only fair to him and respectful as well. Remember, this is a case of a new priest coming into the parish, and IT DOES TAKE TIME to address these issues. As I mentioned previously, the people involved need to be educated and re-trained.

When meeting with the priest, IF you get indifference or opposition, THEN you take it to the Bishop per the RS.

I find this attitude of jumping to the Bishop as the first response incredibly condescending and insulting to priests.

I’m curious, why do these abuses happen? Is it that the liturgy starts out correctly then over time changes? Or does the priest feel that these certain changes are Ok according to his own view? Could it be many times that he feels that those particular details aren’t that important?

Not to sidetrack however, I agree that speaking directly to the Priest first is respectful and charitable. However, I have a feeling that human nature means that Priest will sometimes take offense, sadly.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m curious, why do these abuses happen? Is it that the liturgy starts out correctly then over time changes? Or does the priest feel that these certain changes are Ok according to his own view? Could it be many times that he feels that those particular details aren’t that important?

Not to sidetrack however, I agree that speaking directly to the Priest first is respectful and charitable. However, I have a feeling that human nature means that Priest will sometimes take offense, sadly.

I’m sure it is the case that some are loosey-goosey. Some priests though are not that great at that kind of stuff. They may not be very detail oriented, or good at training or overseeing servers, or kind of oblivious to what is going on around them. Some don’t really seem to be able to translate text directions to actual movements and actions, and so stick with whatever they are used to.

I think that is actually a big one. The liturgy is something you do, in a way like a dance. Most people can’t learn to dance from a book, they actually have to see it done, and ideally be taught physically by someone who knows how to do it.

 

[puzzleannie]

I aThe 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?). w!

these are the actual abuses, the other stuff is annoyance but not abuse. This has to stop and now. Talk to the priest, then to the bishop. then put it in writing with dates, times, specifics in a one-page, signed letter. Include only the real liturgical abuse not the sidelights about music etc.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s just rude at a human level, you don’t go above someone’s head unless you speak to them first unless you think they are likely to bash you on the head and stuff you in a closet or some such thing.

It also lacks humility - perhaps the Bishop and the priest have already spoken and the bishop has said to make changes slowly, or at least knows how the priest intends to proceed.

Going to the Bishop about the brand new priest, without ever having spoken to him, is not going to help anything. (Not to mention the fact that the bishop being in charge of liturgical norms is not actually saying you go to him first with any problem.)

I am going by what Redemptionis Sacramentum says. It’s not about being rude. It is about following what the document specifically states. According to RS, the bishop is the first point of contact here.

 

[jpjd]

I am going by what Redemptionis Sacramentum says. It’s not about being rude. It is about following what the document specifically states. According to RS, the bishop is the first point of contact here.

The RS says:
[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.

The RS, when saying the complaint should be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop, is referring which you should go to first in the list it gave earlier, i.e., whether go first to the diocesan Bishop or to the Apostolic See.

In other words, when you are sumbitting a complaint to this level, you can lodge a complaint to the diocesan Bishop or to the Apostolic See, but insofar as possible, submit it first to the diocesan Bishop.

RS does not insist that we bypass the priest and thus giving him no opportunity whatsoever to even know that you have a complaint, much less giving him an opportunity to resolve it.

Let’s let common sense prevail. If you have a complaint, tell the pastor. If it does not get addressed, then by all means go to the Bishop.

 

[puzzleannie]

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:

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

I can virually guarantee that no bishop will address any such complaints unless the priest has been approached first, and will bounce the letter right back to the pastor. So if you have already met with the pastor about the issues, mention that in the letter.

 

[benedictgal]

I can virually guarantee that no bishop will address any such complaints unless the priest has been approached first, and will bounce the letter right back to the pastor. So if you have already met with the pastor about the issues, mention that in the letter.

Again, all I am doing is quoting RS. Maybe, the complaintant should begin his or her letter with:

Most Reverend and Dear Bishop X:

I submit this letter to you in accordance with the format laid out in Redemptionis Sacrametnum, Section 6, that indicates that concerns regarding liturgical abuse be first reported to the local Ordinary…

Then list the concerns.

 

[jpjd]

Again, all I am doing is quoting RS. Maybe, the complaintant should begin his or her letter with:

Most Reverend and Dear Bishop X:

I submit this letter to you in accordance with the format laid out in Redemptionis Sacrametnum, Section 6, that indicates that concerns regarding liturgical abuse be first reported to the local Ordinary…

Then list the concerns.

You are mis-understanding the RS. See my point in post #28.

 

[benedictgal]

You are mis-understanding the RS. See my point in post #28.

I did read your post; however, I am not misreading what RS states. Nowhere does the priest/pastor appear as the initial point of contact. The only one mentioned at the local level is the bishop.

 

[Cristiano]

I did read your post; however, I am not misreading what RS states. Nowhere does the priest/pastor appear as the initial point of contact. The only one mentioned at the local level is the bishop.

[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.

I think that you are misinterpreting RS. It says that you have the right to go to the Bishop and that you must go to the Bishop before going to the Vatican. It does not say anywhere that the Bishop is the first point of contact.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that you are misinterpreting RS. It says that you have the right to go to the Bishop and that you must go to the Bishop before going to the Vatican. It does not say anywhere that the Bishop is the first point of contact.

Actually, it does:

290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop

Furthermore, it does not even mention the priest/pastor. The complaints should be directed to the local bishop. He is the first point of contact.

 

[Cristiano]

Actually, it does:

Furthermore, it does not even mention the priest/pastor. The complaints should be directed to the local bishop. He is the first point of contact.

Again submitting first to the Bishop means to submit to the Bishop before going to the Vatican. In this case first is used as an antecedent. However, to be fair now I am going to look at the Latin version and then I will get back to you.

 

[benedictgal]

Again submitting first to the Bishop means to submit to the Bishop before going to the Vatican. In this case first is used as an antecedent. However, to be fair now I am going to look at the Latin version and then I will get back to you.

Cristiano, nowhere in thel document does it state that you go to the priest first, Look at the entire section on Remedies. The only points of contact are the local bishop and the Holy See.

 

[Cristiano]

Cristiano, nowhere in thel document does it state that you go to the priest first, Look at the entire section on Remedies. The only points of contact are the local bishop and the Holy See.

The Latin version says “primum” and not “initio” that means that "first’ is simply the mandatory antecedent cause to lodge a complaint with the Holy See.

I do not feel comfortable arguing to much about the construct in English because it is my second language, but my understanding appears to be consistent with the Latin (primum and not initio) and the Italian (dapprima and not inizio or principio) versions.

The obligation to go to the priest first is not spelled in RS because it is spelled in the Bible. First we go to the brother that offends us, then we get witnesses and we go to the Church.

The Bishop and the Holy See are the the points of contact for the escalation of the complaint, in accordance to what is in the Bible.

BTW the numbering [290] refers to a footnote and not to a new paragraph that would make the sentence independent from the rest. and it refers to CCL1417:

Can. 1417 §1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.

§2. Recourse brought to the Apostolic See, however, does not suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a judge who has already begun to adjudicate a case except in the case of an appeal. For this reason, the judge can prosecute a trial even to the definitive sentence unless the Apostolic See has informed the judge that it has called the case to itself.

 

[benedictgal]

The Latin version says “primum” and not “initio” that means that "first’ is simply the mandatory antecedent cause to lodge a complaint with the Holy See.

I do not feel comfortable arguing to much about the construct in English because it is my second language, but my understanding appears to be consistent with the Latin (primum and not initio) and the Italian (dapprima and not inizio or principio) versions.

The obligation to go to the priest first is not spelled in RS because it is spelled in the Bible. First we go to the brother that offends us, then we get witnesses and we go to the Church.

The Bishop and the Holy See are the the points of contact for the escalation of the complaint, in accordance to what is in the Bible.

BTW the numbering [290] refers to a footnote and not to a new paragraph that would make the sentence independent from the rest. and it refers to CCL1417:

Can. 1417 §1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.

§2. Recourse brought to the Apostolic See, however, does not suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a judge who has already begun to adjudicate a case except in the case of an appeal. For this reason, the judge can prosecute a trial even to the definitive sentence unless the Apostolic See has informed the judge that it has called the case to itself.

However, there is still no indication that the priest/pastor is the first point of contact, since sacerdos is not anywhere in the document as the initial party. The only times sacerdos appears is when the document states that any priest or member of the lay faithful has the right to lodge a complaint.

 

[Cristiano]

However, there is still no indication that the priest/pastor is the first point of contact, since sacerdos is not anywhere in the document as the initial party. The only times sacerdos appears is when the document states that any priest or member of the lay faithful has the right to lodge a complaint.

RS is not the only or even primary document to address complaints in the Church. Our Church is about the Bible, the Tradition and the Curia too. We cannot become a “sola scriptura” Church when we look at these issues. A single document like RS is critical but it is not sufficient.

RS [29.] Priests, as capable, prudent and indispensable co-workers of the order of Bishops, called to the service of the People of God, constitute one presbyterate with their Bishop, though charged with differing offices. “In each local congregation of the faithful, in a certain way, **they make present the Bishop with whom they are associated in trust and in generosity of heart; according to their rank, they take upon themselves his duties and his solicitude, and they carry these out in their daily work”. ** And “because of this participation in the Priesthood and mission, Priests should recognize the Bishop as truly their father and obey him reverently”. Furthermore, “ever intent upon the good of God’s children, they should seek to contribute to the pastoral mission of the whole diocese, and indeed of the whole Church”.

That to me means “go and talk to the priest before you go to the Bishop”.

 

[benedictgal]

RS is not the only or even primary document to address complaints in the Church. Our Church is about the Bible, the Tradition and the Curia too. We cannot become a “sola scriptura” Church when we look at these issues. A single document like RS is critical but it is not sufficient.

That to me means “go and talk to the priest before you go to the Bishop”.

As I am waiting to see the doctor, I do not have the energy for my usual debates; however, whe you look at the remedy section, it does not state to go to the priest first. It states that the bishop is the first point ot contact.