Liturgical abuse!

[wisdomseeker]

I realize that, but the person I quoted was incorrect in saying what a shame we have 2 “forms” of the Mass, we have many “forms” of the Mass–all Licit–whether various forms have liturgical abuse or not, I don’t know, but I would assume it happens. Additionally, having different forms doesn’t mean we have different forms of Catholicism. It means we have different ways to express what we believe. Our universality is in our beliefs/doctrines, not in our forms of worship.

Worship is very important. the Worship is was given to us by the Apostles. to keep it and not to do what we believe it should be. protestants do that.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Worship is very important. the Worship is was given to us by the Apostles. to keep it and not to do what we believe it should be. protestants do that.

True, but each Apostle put their “stamp” on various regions that they spread the Gospel to. Worship is not uniform from culture to culture. This is just a fact of life. There are several Rites that all have licit forms of worship…they are Catholic. I don’t like abuses anymore than the next person. I know what to rules are because that was my job for a while.

 

[Cluny]

As I keep on saying: Say the black, do the red, and abuses automatically disappear.

 

[tcraig]

Now that I have your attention, I’d like to talk about the use of this phrase.

It seems to me that this is a phrase that is hurled too easily and readily in this particular forum.

I’m not saying true abuses don’t occur. Most of them can be blamed on a casual attitude towards the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as we all know to our sorrow.

However, it seems to me that sometimes simple mistakes and accidental lapses bring a barrage of accusations here, with detailed descriptions of what happened.

Some have even worried if they make the Mass invalid. (There are only four defects that would do that, and all of them would have to be deliberate: lack of form, lack of proper matter, lack of intention, lack of proper minister.)

Even ancient, standard practices such as chanting the Psalms have been called “abuses” here on these fora by some people.

What is accounting for this sensitivity and even panic?

Shouldn’t the term “liturgical abuse” be reserved for deliberate and serious violations of liturgical norms, and not used to label simple bad habits or accidents?

What do you all have to say?

It is a downright shame that faithful Catholics cannot, in some areas, assist at an even minimally abusive mass, but are treated to gross violations of the GIRM on a regular basis.

Many are, quite simply, shell-shocked from the level of liturgical abuse they must endure week after week, and having never experienced an orthodox mass cannot separate licit from illicit practices. When one realizes that his priest is doing so many things wrong, the assumption that he is actually doing something *right *becomes nonexistent.

Do “simple bad habits or accidents” occur from time to time? Sure, but it’s difficult to believe that what occurs in some parishes is anything but deliberate.

 

[Aramis]

If CDW has called it an abuse, I won’t argue with it.

The CDW called requiring hand holding an abuse, then promptly points out that laity posture is not that tightly regulated.

 

[mystified]

My favorite story of a “liturgical abuse” happened in our own parish, when the pastor was reported - in writing - to the bishop, for the “abuse” of wearing brown shoes on the altar.

Guess our very learned and holy deacon could get in trouble too: cowboy boots.

 

[JustaServant]

Now that I have your attention, I’d like to talk about the use of this phrase.
It seems to me that this is a phrase that is hurled too easily and readily in this particular forum.
I’m not saying true abuses don’t occur. Most of them can be blamed on a casual attitude towards the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as we all know to our sorrow.
However, it seems to me that sometimes simple mistakes and accidental lapses bring a barrage of accusations here, with detailed descriptions of what happened.
Some have even worried if they make the Mass invalid. (There are only four defects that would do that, and all of them would have to be deliberate: lack of form, lack of proper matter, lack of intention, lack of proper minister.)
Even ancient, standard practices such as chanting the Psalms have been called “abuses” here on these fora by some people.
What is accounting for this sensitivity and even panic?
Shouldn’t the term “liturgical abuse” be reserved for deliberate and serious violations of liturgical norms, and not used to label simple bad habits or accidents?
What do you all have to say?

When I was a preacher, there were many times I used to ‘wing it’, in regards to the sermon, music, ect. So, as you can imagine, you never knew what was going to happen from one Sunday to the next. So many churches resemble more like a informal meeting on somebody’s back porch, there is no sense of sacredness.
In a liturgical church however, the order of a liturgy in its structural framework must be unaltered. Without a fixed order, a liturgy is like a body without a skeleton, a game without rules. A fixed order is necessary if worship is to be corporate. A fixed order keeps the fact of redemption before men’s thoughts continually with fixedwords, expressions and symbolism.
The early Church had a high view of God. Things were not done in a haphazard way. They were done with precision. Worshippers knew something important was happening here. They just did not stumble in and sit for an hour. Abuses occur when we forget this and try to imitate the Protestant model.
Jesus said “true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” We do not dictate to God how He is worshiped. It’s not about us, its about giving Him a sacrifice of praise for what He has done for us.

 

[wisdomseeker]

When I was a preacher, there were many times I used to ‘wing it’, in regards to the sermon, music, ect. So, as you can imagine, you never knew what was going to happen from one Sunday to the next. So many churches resemble more like a informal meeting on somebody’s back porch, there is no sense of sacredness.
In a liturgical church however, the order of a liturgy in its structural framework must be unaltered. Without a fixed order, a liturgy is like a body without a skeleton, a game without rules. A fixed order is necessary if worship is to be corporate. A fixed order keeps the fact of redemption before men’s thoughts continually with fixedwords, expressions and symbolism.
The early Church had a high view of God. Things were not done in a haphazard way. They were done with precision. Worshippers knew something important was happening here. They just did not stumble in and sit for an hour. Abuses occur when we forget this and try to imitate the Protestant model.
Jesus said “true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” We do not dictate to God how He is worshiped. It’s not about us, its about giving Him a sacrifice of praise for what He has done for us.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Cluny;5261064:

I will disagree with holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; to me, it’s just a bad habit.

I respectfully disagree on your disagreement, and agree with the Church that holding hands during the Our Father is an abuse. If I could find it, I’d show you the CDW letter where it says holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is an abuse. But that would be a very long Google search, unfortunately. Though I will say this: when abuses become familar, they become bad habits.While holding hands during the Our Father is not part of the rubrics of the Mass (and no one should be required to do it), it should not be considered an “abuse” since it has not been stated as such by the GIRM or any other official Church document.

Eucharised, if you are certain that there is such a document addressing the “holding hands” during the Lord’s Prayer, then the burden of proof is on your side. The GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum are silent on this matter and, to the best of my knowledge, the USCCB has not address the issue either.

 

[Cluny]

It is a downright shame that faithful Catholics cannot, in some areas, assist at an even minimally abusive mass, but are treated to gross violations of the GIRM on a regular basis.

What exactly do you mean by “minimally abusive mass” in this context, tcraig.

What exactly are you calling “abuses”.

I’m not challenging you, but trying to understand.

 

[tcraig]

What exactly do you mean by “minimally abusive mass” in this context, tcraig.

What exactly are you calling “abuses”.

I’m not challenging you, but trying to understand.

I would consider a priest leaving the sanctuary to walk down to the aisle to give a sermon minimally abusive. It’s not supposed to occur, but I would hardly get upset about it if the rest of the mass was celebrated in an orthodox matter. I also personally don’t lose too much sleep if a priest decides to hold hands with the deacon and/or altar servers during the Our Father (it’s stupid, but I can live with it).

As for abuses, I’ve observed all of these at various parishes over the years (and generally when a priest decides to play fast and loose with the mass, there’s more than one abuse):

• priest changes words in fixed readings to be gender-neutral
• priest ad libs and adds phrases during fixed readings and Eucharistic prayer to make it more “personal”
• priest omits Nicene Creed on a regular basis, often after looking at his watch after giving his sermon and realizing that things are “running late”
• priest allows laypersons around altar during consecration
  -priest allows a layperson to give the sermon
• priest allows communicants to self-intinct

 

[JulianN]

Now that I have your attention, I’d like to talk about the use of this phrase.

It seems to me that this is a phrase that is hurled too easily and readily in this particular forum.

I’m not saying true abuses don’t occur. Most of them can be blamed on a casual attitude towards the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as we all know to our sorrow.

However, it seems to me that sometimes simple mistakes and accidental lapses bring a barrage of accusations here, with detailed descriptions of what happened.

Some have even worried if they make the Mass invalid. (There are only four defects that would do that, and all of them would have to be deliberate: lack of form, lack of proper matter, lack of intention, lack of proper minister.)

Even ancient, standard practices such as chanting the Psalms have been called “abuses” here on these fora by some people.

What is accounting for this sensitivity and even panic?

Shouldn’t the term “liturgical abuse” be reserved for deliberate and serious violations of liturgical norms, and not used to label simple bad habits or accidents?

What do you all have to say?

Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if there was a universal “witch hunt” for liturgical abuse. I completely agree with your suggestion for the use of the term.

 

[Shin]

I tend to think that people are sensitive because they are so often burned. Scorch a man enough times, and he responds with, ‘Ouch!’ even as you hint of poking him.

Since liturgical abuse is so prevalent, it’s natural there will be a great deal of questions about what is what, this is the process of finding out how the liturgy works.

The betrayal of trust that liturgical abuse is causes a great deal of harm, and causes people to quite rightly, to refer to the authorities on what is what.

Liturgical abuse is a serious sin. This is the most important event on earth and in Heaven, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

For the sake of the Love of God, people wish it to be approached with reverence, love, and obedience.

Hating sin and loving God are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.

People need to retain their peace, and be careful about these matters and be zealous for the love of God.

 

[TMC]

I never cease to be amazed at the volume of abuse accusations ‘reported’ here. I think that this is mostly a mote v. beam kind of thing. I try to do my part in the Mass, which requires that I focus on the liturgy, the Word, the Sacrifice. I don’t have time or attention left to note down what the altar boys are wearing, what the chalice is made of, whether the entrance hymn was written by (gasp) a Protestant, etc.

Its not that I am ignorant of the Faith – I am generally familiar with the “rules” of the liturgy. Sometimes little deviations happen, and they can be distracting when they do. I just don’t think I’m there to enforce the GIRM. I’m sure there are abuses that are extreme enough that I would feel obliged to point them out, but I have never seen one in real life. (I am generally more annoyed by bad homilists than bad liturgists, but I am learning to be more understanding in that regard, also.) Overall, I think that if the priest is a priest, and he is intending to say Mass, its a Mass. I give thanks for the Mass, do my part, and move on.

 

[Joannm]

I
The betrayal of trust that liturgical abuse is causes a great deal of harm, and causes people to quite rightly, to refer to the authorities on what is what.

Liturgical abuse is a serious sin. This is the most important event on earth and in Heaven, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

.

COuld you please elaborate on what abuses you might consider sinful? I have honestly never seen anything at a mass that I would consider a sin.

 

[Cluny]

• priest changes words in fixed readings to be gender-neutral
• priest ad libs and adds phrases during fixed readings and Eucharistic prayer to make it more “personal”
• priest omits Nicene Creed on a regular basis, often after looking at his watch after giving his sermon and realizing that things are “running late”
• priest allows laypersons around altar during consecration
  -priest allows a layperson to give the sermon
• priest allows communicants to self-intinct

There seem to be different editions of the Lectionary for Mass floating around. It could be that whosoever is reading the text directly in on the lectern, and it just isn’t the text in the pew books.

Alas, I’ve tried reading the Epistle from a Byzantine-rite lectionary adapted from the NAB, and it was frequently so very different–and to me, altogether clumsy and eccentric–that it was difficult for me to read it aloud. Sometimes, I would find myself lapsing into memorized texts that I knew, because I simply couldn’t pronounce the phraseology in the book.

It doesn’t take that long to recite the Nicene Creed, so I don’t know how much time is saved by its omission. (I’m used to it being sung or chanted, myself.)

The rest of what you mentioned are done in direct disobedience to the norms and directions concerning the rites. Were I asked about this in confession, I would consider it grave disobedience to Church Authority.

This is not likely to happen.

I agree that such priests need serious attitude and spiritual adjustments.

But these do not in themselves make the Masses invalid, and therefore not efficacious.

 

[Layman]

Abuses? I wonder how many Catholics in any congregation, these days, would know enough about the rubrics to spot one.

With the Latin Mass, you’re pretty sure what you’re going to get if you go to a new diocese, parish or church.

That is not so with the Novus Ordo Missae, or Ordinary Form. The priest and congregation are becoming the focus of the worship more and more. It also seems to allow much more leeway to the priest modify the rite.

e.g.

Last Sunday, Pentecost. A First Holy Communion service. A sizable picture of one of the communicants on a pillar by the sanctuary. What was worse was the person was known to me; a bit like an instant-beatification-while-still-alive.

An abuse? I dare say, not. Distracting? Certainly.

The priest also messed up some the the words e.g. leaving out the ‘Me’ in “Do this in memory of Me”.

That makes a total of six parishes in two countries I’ve been to. At the Novus Ordo masses I’ve been to, casualness is normal. People chat in church. EMCs present where there’s no need for them. Casual clothing. Have a walk around the church before Mass. Go out of your way to shake people’s hands during the sign of peace. Priest add-libbing bits of the liturgy. Priest making announcements before Mass, during the sermon and before the dismissal. Glide over the less politcally-correct parts of our religion e.g. “Wives fear your husbands, husbands love your wives”.

I’d like to see the E.F. introduced immediately into every parish that only offers the Roman Catholic O.F at the moment. And on Sunday. And early on Sunday. It would be interesting to see what would happen.

While the O.F./N.O. seems to get more ‘personalised’ as the years go by, I find it’s nice to go to a Latin Mass and forget ones’self and one’s mundane problems for a while.

I’m pleased also to say I’ve not much idea what the personalities of the priests of the Latin Masses I’ve attended are like. They just do the job, and then exit. Makes a nice change.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Now that I have your attention, I’d like to talk about the use of this phrase.

It seems to me that this is a phrase that is hurled too easily and readily in this particular forum.

I’m not saying true abuses don’t occur. Most of them can be blamed on a casual attitude towards the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as we all know to our sorrow.

However, it seems to me that sometimes simple mistakes and accidental lapses bring a barrage of accusations here, with detailed descriptions of what happened.

Some have even worried if they make the Mass invalid. (There are only four defects that would do that, and all of them would have to be deliberate: lack of form, lack of proper matter, lack of intention, lack of proper minister.)

Even ancient, standard practices such as chanting the Psalms have been called “abuses” here on these fora by some people.

What is accounting for this sensitivity and even panic?

Shouldn’t the term “liturgical abuse” be reserved for deliberate and serious violations of liturgical norms, and not used to label simple bad habits or accidents?

What do you all have to say?

Cluny,
I want to thank you for this post. It is right on.

What really gets to me though are the people who are quick to point out what they do not like as an abuse but when they do like something, even when it is technically an abuse, they refuse to call it such.

A lot of this is based on what people like and do not like.

I also agree, the only time an Eucharistic Liturgy is not efficacious is when it is invalid and then it is not an Eucharistic Liturgy.

Just because someone does not like something does not mean it is not efficacious.

Whether or not a Liturgy is efficacious is not for us to judge, that is the job of the Church.

Thanks again!

 

[Callixtus]

At the Good Friday liturgy I attended this year, presided by FSSP priests, the prayer for the conversion of the Jews was the old one - not the newer version authorized by Pope Benedict XVI

Was this a liturgical abuse?

It couldn’t have been, because we know that:

1. 
   *]Abuses can’t happen in the Tridentine liturgy
   *]The FSSP would never knowingly disregard the instruction of the Holy Father
   
   So: either word didn’t reach these priests about the new prayer, or it was an oversight.

1. 
   Prodigal, are you speaking sarcastically or do you really mean this as stated? Of course abuses can happen in the Tridentine liturgy.

 

[Cluny]

Abuses? I wonder how many Catholics in any congregation, these days, would know enough about the rubrics to spot one.

With the Latin Mass, you’re pretty sure what you’re going to get if you go to a new diocese, parish or church.

That is not so with the Novus Ordo Missae, or Ordinary Form. The priest and congregation are becoming the focus of the worship more and more. It also seems to allow much more leeway to the priest modify the rite.

e.g.

Last Sunday, Pentecost. A First Holy Communion service. A sizable picture of one of the communicants on a pillar by the sanctuary. What was worse was the person was known to me; a bit like an instant-beatification-while-still-alive.

An abuse? I dare say, not. Distracting? Certainly.

The priest also messed up some the the words e.g. leaving out the ‘Me’ in “Do this in memory of Me”.

That makes a total of six parishes in two countries I’ve been to. At the Novus Ordo masses I’ve been to, casualness is normal. People chat in church. EMCs present where there’s no need for them. Casual clothing. Have a walk around the church before Mass. Go out of your way to shake people’s hands during the sign of peace. Priest add-libbing bits of the liturgy. Priest making announcements before Mass, during the sermon and before the dismissal. Glide over the less politcally-correct parts of our religion e.g. “Wives fear your husbands, husbands love your wives”.

I’d like to see the E.F. introduced immediately into every parish that only offers the Roman Catholic O.F at the moment. And on Sunday. And early on Sunday. It would be interesting to see what would happen.

While the O.F./N.O. seems to get more ‘personalised’ as the years go by, I find it’s nice to go to a Latin Mass and forget ones’self and one’s mundane problems for a while.

I’m pleased also to say I’ve not much idea what the personalities of the priests of the Latin Masses I’ve attended are like. They just do the job, and then exit. Makes a nice change.

I don’t know why a big picture of a first communicant would be put up in the church.

As far as beloved John Paul the Great, since his cause has been officially opened, making him a Servant of God (equivalent of Venerable), I would think this is acceptable.

As far as the casual attitude in church, this is bad manners.

It’s one of the things that keeps people from getting all the blessings that the Mass (however sloppily celebrated) offers in its infinitude.

Whether or not a Liturgy is efficacious is not for us to judge, that is the job of the Church.

I would say that if a Mass is valid, it’s by definition efficacious.