Liturgical abuse!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cluny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Distractions they may be, but a mature Christian will do his best to rise above them.

If you’ve come to adore Christ, nothing will stand in your way.

As the Gospel song says, “I don’t know what you came to do. I came to praise the Lord.”
Father Bishop Basil:

Most of us aren’t nearly as mature as we’d like to be - I find that out about myself every time I read St. Issac of Syria or the Readings of the Desert Fathers…

If I attend a Divine Liturgy of celebrated by you or Fr. Ambrose, or by a few others I know, I’m pretty sure these liturgies won’t have the “distractions” we’ve talked about, and that the only distractions we’d have to deal with would be those we create ourselves.

With REAL LITURGICAL ABUSES, we’re talking about situations that shouldn’t be happening, because they do intrude on the believer’s ability to meaningfully participate in the Divine Liturgy. Believers should be able to overlook the other stuff - Simple Mistakes, differences of opinion, etc. - and concentrate on the majesty and love of God.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
 
Brothers & Sisters:

I think part of our continuing problem is a misunderstanding about the nature of the Divine Liturgy. Most Catholics, and at least some posters here, believe the Divine Liturgy is done for our benefit and our benefit alone. That’s secondary. Although the Divine Liturgy is done for our benefit, it’s primary purpose is bringing God’s Glory to earth (and to His people) by mirroring the Heavenly worship of the Holy Trinity led by the Most Holy Theotokos, the Seraphim and Cherubim and the choirs of the Angels and Saints.

Once we understand that the Divine Liturgy’s purpose is to bring God’s Glory to Earth, HIS Grace to HIS people, HIS Body, on Earth and to feed and remake us HERE into HIM in HEAVEN, we’ll worship our Lord as HE should be worshiped & do the Divine Liturgy with the Reverence and Awe the King of Kings and Lord of Lords merits and deserves. We’d Kept our Lord in the CENTER and Adore HIM instead of placing us at the Center and Adore us. We’d recognize how fortunate we are that God chose to save us instead of allowing music, prayers and homilies that said how lucky God was to have us.

And, We’d have NO MORE need to worry about reporting Abuses in the Liturgy or trying to figure out if something was an Abuse, a mistake, a matter of interpretation or just simply a matter of taste.

Good Night and,…
Guide us waking, Oh Lord,
And guard us sleeping,
So that awake, we may watch with Christ,
And asleep, we may rest in peace.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael
 
With REAL LITURGICAL ABUSES, we’re talking about situations that shouldn’t be happening, because they do intrude on the believer’s ability to meaningfully participate in the Divine Liturgy. Believers should be able to overlook the other stuff - Simple Mistakes, differences of opinion, etc. - and concentrate on the majesty and love of God.

I think this is what Cluny was talking about in his/her original posts and successive ones: that the term “liturgical abuse” gets flung too easily.
 
I have defined what I think efficacity is. Others have said/implied that validity = efficacity: as long as the consecration is valid, that’s it. The rest is up to the congregation. I don’t think that’s so. I haven’t seen an official definition of it, or an unofficial one made by a saint.

**Guess what, Layman?

Not everything in the Church is defined to the last comma, though I realize that some people think it is, or wish it were.

I have an idea for you.

I mentioned that I did a search on an on-line version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the word “efficacy”, and found only seven uses of that word. One of them I have quoted already. It seems to link concern with “efficacy” to superstition.

Why don’t you do the same thing–maybe also trying “efficacious”–and see what you come up with?

There may not be an “official definition of efficacy”, but it might be enlightening to see how the word is used in the Church’s official documents.**
 
With REAL LITURGICAL ABUSES, we’re talking about situations that shouldn’t be happening, because they do intrude on the believer’s ability to meaningfully participate in the Divine Liturgy. Believers should be able to overlook the other stuff - Simple Mistakes, differences of opinion, etc. - and concentrate on the majesty and love of God.

**I think this is what Cluny was talking about in his/her original posts and successive ones: that the term “liturgical abuse” gets flung too easily.

And you’re quite right. In the Eucharistic Liturgy, we are brought up to Heaven: this is the teaching of the Church. It doesn’t matter if the ride is bumpy, or we don’t feel we really got there.

**
 
Just noticed that amongst those those offering ciriticism of what I am saying have as their religion: Orthodox, Trad. Anglican and ‘Other’. Another is a convert from Protestantism.

I am a cradle Roman Catholic and a child of the N.O. I stopped going to Mass in the early '80’s.

When I returned we had CITH, Altar Girls and EMCs. That’s only in twenty years.

I have attended Mass in both O.F. and E.F. in six parishes across two countries in recent years. So I’m telling you that The Roman Catholic O.F/N.O rite is going to look quite … interesting … in another forty years at the current rate of change.

There won’t be any need to worry about things now considered abuses, because by then they’ll be the norm, as CITH and EMCs are now.

But there is hope: The Motu Proprio, Pope Benedict, vocations to trad. seminaries and, perversely, increasingly silly N.O. Masses. When you see women dancing in front of the Tabernacle of the Lord, you gotta know something’s going wrong.
 
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?
I agree 100% and it creates a “crying wolf syndrome” which is tragic.

After awhile people turn a deaf ear to the rants of “liturgical abuse!” some try to apply to such things as lay use of the orans or holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer.

There are serveral levels of true abuses per RS. In addition there are what I call “iregularities” as well as perfectly licit/regular matters that simply do not meet the individual taste of some of us.
 
I propose that the abuses and novelties I mentioned are, at best, distracting, and at worse will lessen the efficacity of the rite…
Impossible unless the “abuses” actually invalidate the Mass. While I do think some peoples’ nourishment is impacted because they focus on things like brown shoes, a slipped or missing amice or the licit use of EMsHC, that’s on them and not on the Mass.
 
Impossible unless the “abuses” actually invalidate the Mass. While I do think some peoples’ nourishment is impacted because they focus on things like brown shoes, a slipped or missing amice or the licit use of EMsHC, that’s on them and not on the Mass.
What I think is really sad is that there are people–e.g., me, a Protestant convert–who are perfectly happy with the Mass, but when they are exposed to the teachings about “liturgical abuse,” namely the “extreme teachings” spread by the “liturgical police,” it is like an infection that makes it very difficult for us to feel the same way about our Mass ever again.

There are times that I feel like I’ve been raped by these liturgical police.

Their teachings destroyed my innocent appreciation and awe of the OF Mass.

It’s like when Eve first ate the fruit, her eyes were opened. I feel like my eyes were opened, but in a bad way–I now find myself policing any Mass I attend and mentally ticking off abuses, even the littlest of abuses.

And then I remonstrate against myself and rebuke myself.

And…I hate to confess this… these little “cracks” in the liturgy cause me to question the Authority of the Church. After all, if the priest is using the wrong kind of chalice to hold the Precious Blood, then perhaps he is also wrong about artificial contraception, or divorce, or a myriad of other teachings.

And I wonder why the Church doesn’t DO SOMETHING about all these abuses! Again, distrust and disdain and a growing disillusionment with Catholicism.

I wonder how many Catholics have left the Church down this path. Perhaps they started out hunting for liturgical abuses out of a sense of responsibility and duty, thinking that they were doing something righteous. But as they continued to spot more and more “abuses,” these abuses gradually destroyed their joy in the Mass, and eventually they grew completely disillusioned and decided to walk away from the Church, since obviously, it can’t even correct a Mass, so how can it correct souls?

I honestly believe that liturgical police can send people down this path. Well, I will NOT go down this path.

As an evangelical Protestant, I was taught to disregard emotion and to base my faith on cold, hard facts. **So I deliberately choose to disregard the “liturgical police” and the kinds of behaviors that Cluny was thinking of when starting this thread. ** I believe that my soul is at stake.

I have to continually remind myself that I must submit to the Authority of Holy Mother Church, and trust that her clergy know what they’re doing, and that if there is a serious error, the Holy Spirit will convict the proper people and the error will eventually be corrected.

Here are the facts as I understand them, and these facts are what I base my faith on. The Catholic Church was given authority on this earth by Jesus Christ Himself. The Pope and Magisterium, and the bishops and priests, are the human authorities in the Catholic Church. They are given charisms by the Holy Spirit to help them to fulfil their calling, and the Church is protected from errors in faith and morals. Various practices, including the liturgy, are NOT the authority in the Church, and may be changed by the Church over the years because these are not faith and morals.

The liturgy is, indeed, a sacred thing that the Church strives to keep intact. If abuses occur, it is proper for laypeople to go to their priest and request that the abuse be corrected.

BUT…as a layperson, and especially as a fairly new Catholic, it is very likely that I do NOT have a full understanding of the liturgy and all the many variations tthat are permitted. Because I am not an expert, it is best at this time to leave the discernment of liturgical abuse to those who are more knowledgeable and tactful than I. I can and I WILL trust that the Holy Spirit WILL lead those knowledgeable people to the proper authorities.

And in the meantime, I will delight in whatever Mass I attend, and trust that the Lord Jesus will bestow many graces upon me as I serve at Mass and receive my Lord in Holy Communion. I will not sigh because the Mass has occasional human errors and mistakes and imperfections.

I believe that it is in Mass that we are closest to heaven on this earth. There is a curtain separating earth and heaven. At Mass, we are privileged to be able to see through this curtain and glimpse, as shadows, the glories of heaven. As long as the Mass is licit and valid, the abuses do not take away heaven. The more we concentrate on abuses, the harder it is to see heaven at all. It is not the abuses that destroy our ability to glimpse heaven, it is our fixation on the abuses. I will look past the abuses and try very hard to see through the curtain into heaven during Mass.

As Uncle Tom said of Evangeline’s death: “…we’ll all get a look in at the glory…”

A silly thing like someone holding hands during a prayer is NOT going to make me take my eyes off heaven on earth. Even a girl dances around the altar (I’ve never seen this), I will NOT look away from that curtain and miss my “look in at the glory.”

I hope this sounds like a reasonable approach towards the liturgy.
 
Don’t fret too much. This sort of thing is going to play itself out.

The Church deals in decades and centuries. The last 40+ years seem like a long time to we mortals, but it’s not in historical terms.

I think modernism is having its day in the sun, and as its true fruits are becoming known, this knowledge will inoculate the Church against it for the next 200 years. It’s painful, but necessary.

Whatever sanctifies us will remain in the end.
 
Just noticed that amongst those those offering ciriticism of what I am saying have as their religion: Orthodox, Trad. Anglican and ‘Other’. Another is a convert from Protestantism.

I am a cradle Roman Catholic and a child of the N.O. I stopped going to Mass in the early '80’s.

And this makes you an authority because…???
 
I hope this sounds like a reasonable approach towards the liturgy.
Dont let extreme views on either side take your eyes off of Christ or what the Church stands for. The safest place is in the middle. I love the EF and believe it will continue to spread in this century. The OF is STILL the Mass and there is very little I have to complain about (I mean, after you’ve seen people ‘slain in the spirit’, dance in the aisles, babble in tongues, and ‘laugh’ in the spirit, its kinda hard to get too upset at people holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer! :eek:).
I havent seen many abuses myself, of course I live in a small town in Wv. I wouldn’t worry about the “liturgy police”, or what other people are doing or thinking. Just go to Mass, say the rosary, and be the best Catholic you can be.
In the end, its God you have to answer to, not anyone on an internet forum.
🙂
 
Just noticed that amongst those those offering ciriticism of what I am saying have as their religion: Orthodox, Trad. Anglican and ‘Other’. Another is a convert from Protestantism.
Whats your point? Because one is a convert from across the Tiber that invalidates her opinion? Instead of welcoming her into the Church, you appear to be stamping a label on her. Should CAT just sit in the back pew and be quiet? Does it make her less than you are because she is a ‘convert’?
That’s the kind of attitude I found in fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is a mindset, not a denomination. And Catholics are not immune to it.
 
My point is:

I’ve been going to Roman Catholic N.O. Masses on and off for 40+ years, in the post Vat. II period. When I stopped going in the early 80’s, and came back a few years ago, CITH, altar girls and EMCs had been added to our rite. **It was like going into hibernation, or a kind of time-travel, resulting in surprise at what had changed.

Projecting onwards, if that rate of change continues, things like liturgical dancing or female deacons won’t seem so unusual. It seems to be a trend.** (There was a picture of two girls dancing in front of an altar during a Mass on the front page of the Irish Catholic newspaper a few weeks ago. It was printed without comment. Like it was normal.).

If other posters are Orthodox, Anglican, or recent converts, they won’t have that perspective. That’s all.
 
There have been liturgical abuses for 2000 years. Nothing new under the sun.
 
My point is:

I’ve been going to Roman Catholic N.O. Masses on and off for 40+ years, in the post Vat. II period. When I stopped going in the early 80’s, and came back a few years ago, CITH, altar girls and EMCs had been added to our rite. **It was like going into hibernation, or a kind of time-travel, resulting in surprise at what had changed.

Projecting onwards, if that rate of change continues, things like liturgical dancing or female deacons won’t seem so unusual. It seems to be a trend.** (There was a picture of two girls dancing in front of an altar during a Mass on the front page of the Irish Catholic newspaper a few weeks ago. It was printed without comment. Like it was normal.).

If other posters are Orthodox, Anglican, or recent converts, they won’t have that perspective. That’s all.
I think it came off a little differently than perhaps you intended.
I’m a revert, so I understand that time-warp you speak of. However, being a student of history, I also recognize many of the treads noted in this thread were part of the generational culture of the 1960s and 70s. As HH has said, the Church cannot remain frozen in 1962 (when Vatican 2 convened). So no, I dont think the trend will continue.
Also, much of what has been spoken here comes under the heading of ‘custom’. While customs might change, the liturgy does not.
 
My point is:

I’ve been going to Roman Catholic N.O. Masses on and off for 40+ years, in the post Vat. II period. When I stopped going in the early 80’s, and came back a few years ago, CITH, altar girls and EMCs had been added to our rite. **It was like going into hibernation, or a kind of time-travel, resulting in surprise at what had changed. **

And did you think that things would stay frozen?
Projecting onwards, if that rate of change continues, things like liturgical dancing or female deacons won’t seem so unusual.
 
Heh heh heh, here we go. That was quick. I really thought female deacons would be the next innovation-cum-archeologism. Looks like I’m behind the times.

You can make a very novel liturgy picking and mixing discarded bits and pieces of old rites. Whether Heaven will favour it is quite another thing.

As to being ‘frozen in time’; it would be nice to go to Mass in a new church or parish where you don’t have to wonder what’s going to appear in the sanctuary.

"Tradition: as tried and tested by many saints. Why not give it a go?"

Personally, I’d rather leave the novelties to more adventurous souls. As long as they’re fully aware of the TLM and what it offers, and the differences between it and the N.O., then they can choose.

I’m concerned that people can now dwell in progressive dioceses where there’s one TLM a month on a weekday which is not well publicised (if that). Combined with bad cathecisis, they may not have a clue that the Mass was ever very different, or about the true nature of their religion, and drift away from the Church.

I propose that: Progressive innovation => people-focused liturgy => casual congregation => falling vocations => falling attendance => falling collection => church closure.


Doesn’t need to happen in every parish, or at a steady pace. Just here and there, over time.
 
Layman, I shared your concerns with three priests: one trained by the Jesuits in the 50’s, one a Benedictine who studied in Rome, and one a Trappist abbot who has held office with the Trappist Generalate (likewise in Rome).

Among other things, I asked them if there were some Western theological use of “efficacy” and “efficacious” with which I was unfamiliar.

They all said basically the same things:
  1. The efficacy of a valid Mass is infinite.
  2. The ministers (celebrants, deacons, et al) should do their best to maintain recollection and reverence.
  3. Externalities, such as the music or who reads the Epistle or gender of the altar servers does not affect this objective efficacy. Even deliberate illicit acts cannot detract from this. (Though such acts would be sins against obedience, and if they shock the faithful, against charity.)
  4. Furthermore, nothing the Church permits in liturgical practice can singly or in combination with other permitted practices be considered inefficacious.
  5. Subjective experience–“efficacy” in your sense-- is not something the church defines or even tries to assess. If someone finds this or that permitted practice of the Church distracting (“inefficacious” in your terminology), this something for the individual to try to overcome, remembering that what he finds distracting ( or “inefficacious”) might be the very thing that touches the heart of another.
  6. One is always free to attend a Liturgy he finds less distracting (“inefficacious”), but he should not judge the entire Church by his personal experience or taste.
 
Brothers & Sisters:

I think part of our continuing problem is a misunderstanding about the nature of the Divine Liturgy. Most Catholics, and at least some posters here, believe the Divine Liturgy is done for our benefit and our benefit alone. That’s secondary. Although the Divine Liturgy is done for our benefit, it’s primary purpose is bringing God’s Glory to earth (and to His people) by mirroring the Heavenly worship of the Holy Trinity led by the Most Holy Theotokos, the Seraphim and Cherubim and the choirs of the Angels and Saints.

Once we understand that the Divine Liturgy’s purpose is to bring God’s Glory to Earth, HIS Grace to HIS people, HIS Body, on Earth and to feed and remake us HERE into HIM in HEAVEN, we’ll worship our Lord as HE should be worshiped & do the Divine Liturgy with the Reverence and Awe the King of Kings and Lord of Lords merits and deserves. We’d Kept our Lord in the CENTER and Adore HIM instead of placing us at the Center and Adore us. We’d recognize how fortunate we are that God chose to save us instead of allowing music, prayers and homilies that said how lucky God was to have us.

And, We’d have NO MORE need to worry about reporting Abuses in the Liturgy or trying to figure out if something was an Abuse, a mistake, a matter of interpretation or just simply a matter of taste.

Good Night and,…
Be careful.

The “Divine Liturgy” is the actual name of the sacrificial liturgy some some of the eastern Catholic churches. While technically accurate, it’s confusing to refer to the Mass as the “Divine Liturgy.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top