And with all due respect, I think you’re throwing the word abuse around like candy. The fact that something is recited instead of sung may be incorrect but its most certainly not an “abuse.” The fact that the celebrant might have accidentally left out the memorial acclaimation is not an “abuse.”
To be an “abuse” would mean that the celebrant (or planner) was purposely trying to subvert the theology/meaning of liturgical acts. The prayer of the faithful is the only thing that comes remotely close to being an “abuse” of the liturgy and even that was not the most egregious thing I’ve ever seen.
I also think you need to remember that just because you interpret the homily given as a eulogy doesn’t mean everyone else did. I’ve heard many comments that did not interpret the homily as you have done.
I also understand that you interpret the “no eulogy in a homily” as strict as humanly possible but most bishops do not. I already quoted in this thread a diocese’s guidelines on mentioning the life of the deceased in the homily.
In this country, to make no mention of the deceased’s life in a funeral homily would be perceived as an absolute insult to the deceased and the surviving family.
But, Father, the homily should be centered around the Gospel and the readings, not around the life of the deceased. I heard the homily that was preached. The homilist spent more time extolling the deceased and about what he did, as opposed to what the Gospel for the Mass said. A lot of this, unfortunately, revolves around poor catechesis regarding what the homily should say. Perhaps in this country, better preparation needs to be made regarding what a funeral Mass homily should be, based upon the principles outlined in the GIRM and in the Rite. The funeral Mass is not the time to canonize the deceased. I have heard that too many times during the course of the funeral Masses that I have assisted.
If you don’t mind my asking: did you watch the funeral Mass? Your post indcates that you heard comments about the homily, but, I do not recall if you said that you actually saw the broadcast. I believe that this is a fair question to ask.
When my parochial vicar celebrated the funeral Mass for my late grandmother, he preached about the Gospel. He made slight mention of her in passing, but, he kept his words confined to the Gospel. That is what he does at just about all of the funeral Masses he celebrates. When my own mother died (and the funeral Mass for her was the first liturgy I ever planned), I made sure that there were no eulogies or reflections at the Mass. Instead, I confined the remarks to after the Vigil of the Deceased. Our pastor (who has since died) also did not spend the homily talking about her. He, like my parochial vicar, kept his remarks to the Gospel. As a widower, he was able to give some perspective to my father, but, these were brief statements (he had already expounded on these at the vigil, but, he did not say too much). I remember because during both occasions, my brain was on liturgy mode and I was focused on making sure that everything ran according to how the Church mandates it. The grieving I did was after everything was over.
The focus of the Mass, whether it is for a funeral, a wedding or an obligatory Mass, should always be on the Lord, not on the individual. We are not Protestants. We have our norms and rubrics. These must be followed. Furthemore, it is pastoral prudence on the part of priests to properly advise and prepare the family as they are making funeral arrangements and explain to them what the Church allows and what she does not allow for the Mass.
The omission of the Memorial Acclamation was an abuse, whether one wants to admit it or not. It was not something that appears to have been accidental. The principle celebrant raced over it. The General Intercessions were also an abuse because the Rite calls for these prayers to be for the repose of the soul of the deceased and for the family. There is a formula that should be followed. Evidently, this was not the case at all.
As I said, I stand by what I said. Sadly, a lot of times, celebrants don’t like to be called out when there are glaring problems in the liturgies they celebrate. However, the Mass is not our personal property to do with as we please. The issue is much more worrisome when such an event is televised and people are given the wrong idea as to what a funeral Mass should be like. Celebrants also carry the burden of obedience to the norms and do not have the authority, as both the Constitution on the Liturgy and Redemptionis Sacramentum note, to make any changes to the Mass on his own initiative.
Father, obviously, I am not a priest. But, I have read the documents and have planned enough liturgies at both the parochial and the diocesan level to know what should and should not be happening at the Mass. Yes, I have even called out my parochial vicar (who was also my rector when I was assisting at the Cathedral) on irregularities. At first, he will get upset, but, after he reads the documents, he realizes that something was amiss. We’ll call each other out. But, as I have already said, once we double check the documents, then we correct the mistakes and resolve not to repeat them. The Liturgy is too great a treasure to treat flippantly. Certainly, regardless of who the deceased was, he deserved to have the Mass celebrated according to what the Church requires. I would hope that when our time comes, we will enjoy that same right as well.
Certainly the EF is never referred to as being planned. It’s right there in the Missal. You can, however, plan some of the music.
