Liturgical abuse!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cluny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cluny

Guest
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. I agree with your observations. I have long wondered what some of the self-appointed “liturgical Sherlock Holmeses” out there even gain from Mass, so intent do they seem to be at hunting down what they feel are “abuses.” A whole lot of people who have just received the Eucharist seem to have their attention focused on how the vessels are purified instead of Who they have just received; I’ve never understood that. Of course REAL abuses do exist, but how often have we seen posts based on lack of knowledge (Gee, it’s really OK to sing the Psalm? You mean Father doesn’t HAVE to say the Confetior in the Penetential Rite? There are other Eucharistic Prayers? Deacons (gasp!) really ARE allowed to preach the homily?)

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.

Motivations for all of this? For some, I think being on the “abuse patrol” reinforces their prejudice against the Mass of Paul VI (and/or dislike of Vatican II) and fosters some need to feel religiously superior or more-devout-than-thou. For some others, I think there’s a sense of liturgical schadenfreude, a need to delight in what they see as a defective Mass or ignorant or sloppy priest (especially when visiting away from home) insofar as it makes their home parish somehow more superior or righteous. A whole lot of the “abuse” comments revolve around Extraordinary Ministers, and that’s a separate agenda. The way the term “NO” is thrown around here (as in “It was a NO parish,” or, “He’s a NO priest” shows that many appear to regard the Ordinary Form as almost some sect within (and barely within at that) the Church; with a mindset like that, the need to find liturgical flaws - excuse me, abuses - becomes self-evident.

I wish there were another word, short of “abuse,” for the irregularities that sometimes pop up. Of course, it’s nowhere near as satisfying to accuse someone of an “irregularity.”

If everything’s an “Abuse,” we also lose the ability to distinguish between “Father didn’t wash his fingers” and “a layperson gave the homily.”

Boy, am I gonna get flamed for this . . . . .
 
Of course REAL abuses do exist, but how often have we seen posts based on lack of knowledge … Deacons (gasp!) really ARE allowed to preach the homily?
Click to expand...
I’m reminded of a letter in the National Catholic Reporter complaing about the abuses committed by deacons by wearing vestments, taking some of the duties of the priest by reading the Gospel and delivering homilies, and some of the duties of the laity by leading the Prayer of the Faithful and distributing Communion.

Eucharisted–Thank you for your link. These things are true abuses, and the term should be reserved for such as them.

I will disagree with holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; to me, it’s just a bad habit.
 
Cluny said:
I will disagree with holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; to me, it’s just a bad habit.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Eucharisted said:
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.
Click to expand...
If CDW has called it an abuse, I won’t argue with it.
 
Cluny said:
I’m reminded of a letter in the National Catholic Reporter complaing about the abuses committed by deacons by wearing vestments, taking some of the duties of the priest by reading the Gospel and delivering homilies, and some of the duties of the laity by leading the Prayer of the Faithful and distributing Communion.

Eucharisted–Thank you for your link. These things are true abuses, and the term should be reserved for such as them.

I will disagree with holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer; to me, it’s just a bad habit.
Click to expand...
  1. Deacons DO wear vestments, and they have specific vestments which they wear. If, however, they are wearing the vestments of a priest and taking on the role of the priest at Mass, then yes, this is an abuse.
  2. Distributing communion is NOT a “duty of the laity.”
 
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.
 
Eucharisted said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, considering that the official document of the Church on the liturgy is the General Instructions of the Roman Missal - known in short as the GIRM - does not cover the issue, and the GIRM has been twice revised since hand holding started, and the document on abuses of the liturgy - Redemptionis Sacarmentum - did not cover it, it is of highly debatable status whether a letter coming from the CDW has the power of law over the issue. There are also issues concerning the lenght of time with which hand holding has occured - I have documentation of it occuring in 1965, which is 44 years ago - which would seem to come within the principle of continuous, open and notorious (in the legal sense) action becoming accepted.

The GIRM has been written twice since Rome was aquainted with the practice, and Rome has seen fit to not address the issue in the GIRM at all. I fact, in regards to posture, the GIRM is essentially silent in regards to what the laity do with their hands while in the pew.

That some people do not like it is undeniable. They should not be required to do so by others. On the other hand, they have no cause to look down their nose at those who do.

And as a final comment, it might be noted that the bishops have heard this issue ad nauseum from those who do not like it. At one point, I am sure because he had heard about this to the point of distraction, Archbishop Chaput - not ssmeone noted to be in the liberals camp - publicly wrote a letter. I would suggest that the Archbishop has better knowledge of what Rome has said than anyone in these fora. His comment was that Rome in essence doesn’t care about the matter and has not made any rules; and as such it is neither allowed or forbidden, because it (*your hand position) is not regulated at all. His comment was that those who wish to hold hands are liturgically free to do so and are not to be criticised; those who do not wish to do so are not to be required to do so, and both sides need to exhibit charity about the matter.

None of this is to say that it is a good liturgical action; it is not a matter of taking sides. There may be any number of things that people don’t like, but the Church does not micro manage such issues, and never has. The Mass, before Vatican 2 was not so regulated. Any regulations as to hands came primarily from the good nuns who would whack us if we were poking each other. No one held hands, but there also was no law saying you didn’t do that; people just didn’t do it. Once they started doing it, it seems that everyone from the person in the pew next to you to the pastor to the bishop to the diacasteries in Rome, and I suspect maybe even the Pope himself, heard about it. Some have tsk tsked about it, but Rome has not, and continues to not make any regulation concerning it.
 
Shin said:
Treats how serious liturgical abuse is, what determines how efficacious a mass is, our duties, etc.
Click to expand...
There’s already been a long, heated thread about this elsewhere.

To make a long story short, one validly celebrated Mass is as efficacious as the next validly celebrated Mass, regardless of rite, regardless of lapses, errors, felt banners, or anything else.

Why? Because the spiritual value of the Mass is infinite, and you don’t have greater or lesser degrees of infinity.

Unless (as I suggested elsewhere) you think that some “abuses” mean the host only partially consecrates.

And, as I implied in my original posting here, most people use “abuse” (or for that matter, “inefficacious”) to mean, “I don’t like this.”
 
I’ve been wondering…it’s a bit sad, isn’t it, that there are now “two” forms of the Mass, Although I have recently discovered a Latin Mass close to my home, it seems to me that it’s a case of “never the twain shall meet”.
I know it’s Mass, however it is celebrated, but does this mean that there are now going to be TWO forms of Catholicism for the foreseeable future?

Speaking personally, I am not comfortable with the very modern liturgy at my local parish. I suppose I don’t have the personality which embraces it. However, and equally validly, my daughter who has young children, has said that it suits them and it is a very vibrant community. She has refused to accompany me to the Latin Mass.

Maybe after all, it isn’t a sad development - perhaps, under the banner of “one, holy ,catholic and apostolic church” there will now be room for everyone to feel at home.
 
Cluny said:
There’s already been a long, heated thread about this elsewhere.

To make a long story short, one validly celebrated Mass is as efficacious as the next validly celebrated Mass, regardless of rite, regardless of lapses, errors, felt banners, or anything else.

Why? Because the spiritual value of the Mass is infinite, and you don’t have greater or lesser degrees of infinity.

Unless (as I suggested elsewhere) you think that some “abuses” mean the host only partially consecrates.

And, as I implied in my original posting here, most people use “abuse” (or for that matter, “inefficacious”) to mean, “I don’t like this.”
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone hasn’t listened to the sermons, or taken the simple spiritual facts seriously within.
 
Eucharisted said:
Liturgical abuses: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

Many people have misunderstood what the Second Vatican Council was putting forth, and that’s where the abuses come from.
Click to expand...
i read it and i see a lot of these abuses in my parish. now, we no longer read the Creed. the says the Words and we respond by saying, i do.

holy water is taking out during those days of Lent and so forth. bells have been taken out. and others. the priest holds hands with the laity around the Sanctuary during Our Father or hold hands with altar boys. i been seen many bizarre practice in my Parish.

what it is worse is that the majority of the laity enjoys it.
 
bluecake said:
I’ve been wondering…it’s a bit sad, isn’t it, that there are now “two” forms of the Mass, Although I have recently discovered a Latin Mass close to my home, it seems to me that it’s a case of “never the twain shall meet”.
I know it’s Mass, however it is celebrated, but does this mean that there are now going to be TWO forms of Catholicism for the foreseeable future?

Speaking personally, I am not comfortable with the very modern liturgy at my local parish. I suppose I don’t have the personality which embraces it. However, and equally validly, my daughter who has young children, has said that it suits them and it is a very vibrant community. She has refused to accompany me to the Latin Mass.

Maybe after all, it isn’t a sad development - perhaps, under the banner of “one, holy ,catholic and apostolic church” there will now be room for everyone to feel at home.
Click to expand...
I hate to break it to you, but there are several valid, licit “forms” of the Mass because there are many different Rites of the Church. There are Byzantine Catholics who have their own liturgy plus others that I can’t name right now, AH, here’s some info for you that spells out the Rites and Liturgical practices:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

We are united in belief, even if our liturgies are a bit different.
 
Jennifer_J said:
I hate to break it to you, but there are several valid, licit “forms” of the Mass because there are many different Rites of the Church. There are Byzantine Catholics who have their own liturgy plus others that I can’t name right now, AH, here’s some info for you that spells out the Rites and Liturgical practices:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

We are united in belief, even if our liturgies are a bit different.
Click to expand...
i dont think we are discussing Rites of the Church. we are discussion liturgical abuses withing the Church. bizarre introductions in the Mass that is not normal. that is it.
 
Cluny said:
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?
Click to expand...
Someone in another thread a while back, aptly called this tendency of ours to attack…“GIRM warfare”

Ultimately, I agree with you. While real abuses do exist, I think sometimes we find ourselves looking for them, rather than experiencing the Mass, in whatever form that happens to take. There are some issues, I think that are vastly more important than others (how the Eucharist is handled, vs. lay hand gestures). I think, for me, I’d rather not be so focussed on the details that I miss the presence of our Lord.
 
wisdomseeker said:
i dont think we are discussing Rites of the Church. we are discussion liturgical abuses withing the Church. bizarre introductions in the Mass that is not normal. that is it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
otjm said:
Well, considering that the official document of the Church on the liturgy is the General Instructions of the Roman Missal - known in short as the GIRM - does not cover the issue, and the GIRM has been twice revised since hand holding started, and the document on abuses of the liturgy - Redemptionis Sacarmentum - did not cover it, it is of highly debatable status whether a letter coming from the CDW has the power of law over the issue. There are also issues concerning the lenght of time with which hand holding has occured - I have documentation of it occuring in 1965, which is 44 years ago - which would seem to come within the principle of continuous, open and notorious (in the legal sense) action becoming accepted.

The GIRM has been written twice since Rome was aquainted with the practice, and Rome has seen fit to not address the issue in the GIRM at all. I fact, in regards to posture, the GIRM is essentially silent in regards to what the laity do with their hands while in the pew.

That some people do not like it is undeniable. They should not be required to do so by others. On the other hand, they have no cause to look down their nose at those who do.

And as a final comment, it might be noted that the bishops have heard this issue ad nauseum from those who do not like it. At one point, I am sure because he had heard about this to the point of distraction, Archbishop Chaput - not ssmeone noted to be in the liberals camp - publicly wrote a letter. I would suggest that the Archbishop has better knowledge of what Rome has said than anyone in these fora. His comment was that Rome in essence doesn’t care about the matter and has not made any rules; and as such it is neither allowed or forbidden, because it (*your hand position) is not regulated at all. His comment was that those who wish to hold hands are liturgically free to do so and are not to be criticised; those who do not wish to do so are not to be required to do so, and both sides need to exhibit charity about the matter.

None of this is to say that it is a good liturgical action; it is not a matter of taking sides. There may be any number of things that people don’t like, but the Church does not micro manage such issues, and never has. The Mass, before Vatican 2 was not so regulated. Any regulations as to hands came primarily from the good nuns who would whack us if we were poking each other. No one held hands, but there also was no law saying you didn’t do that; people just didn’t do it. Once they started doing it, it seems that everyone from the person in the pew next to you to the pastor to the bishop to the diacasteries in Rome, and I suspect maybe even the Pope himself, heard about it. Some have tsk tsked about it, but Rome has not, and continues to not make any regulation concerning it.
Click to expand...
May I ask if this also applies to hand positions during songs, e.g., clapping, waving hands, doing “motions,” etc.? Thank you.

It seems to me that there are two different “camps” here. One camp says that if the GIRM is silent, that means an action is forbidden and we shouldn’t do it.

The other camp says that if the GIRM is silent, an action is permitted if we wish to do it.

I admit that I tend to be part of the second camp. The GIRM simply can’t address every little thing. E.g, I don’t know if the GIRM addresses people leaving in the middle of Mass to go to the bathroom. I don’t think there is any mention of people leaving in the middle of Mass–maybe there is?? But if there isn’t any mention, does this mean that it is forbidden to leave in the middle of Mass to go to the bathroom? (A lot of elderly people, pregnant women, and people with overactive bladders will be very unhappy if they were forbidden from making that dash to the potty!)

Same thing about facial expressions. If the GIRM truly forbids everything that isn’t mentioned, is it forbidden to laugh during Mass (funny joke from priest, kid in front of you does something cute, etc.)? Or is it forbidden to cry (hymn words are touching, kid in front of you does something cute, etc.)?

I don’t know much about these things, but I think that it’s safe to be in Camp 2–if the GIRM doesn’t specifically forbid it, it’s OK. Or am I way off base here?
 
I agree with you Cluny. One thing that this obsession with abuse has done to these boards (and its even truer on the Liturgy board than here) is that everything has become a lecture. People who post asking for advice usually get Redemptionis Sacramentum quoted back to them instead of spiritual advice. Protestants who want to start attending Mass get the CDW letter prohibiting getting a blessing at Communion quoted at them instead of being advised to do an Spiritual Communion.

I remember about a year ago, some poor soul who was seeking to return to the Church after a long time away, posted seeking advice about going to what was obviously a local parish’s Lenten Penitential Service with Confession. You could tell the guy was confusing terminology and he mistakenly referred to it as a Mass. Immediately, the liturgy police of the Liturgy Board quoted *Redemptionis Sacramentum * and lectured about how Confession should never be part of a Mass (like --assuming for the sake of argument if it were a Mass with Confession-- this poor guy had any control over a local parish was doing). Instead of having his request for spiritual advice answered, the poor guy’s posting became a conduit for the Redemptionis Sacramentum crowd to show off how well they can quote and lecture.

Similarly, when you see the occasional “I am a Protestant who is going to start going to Mass. My friend tell me that I can go up for a blessing during Communion. Is that true?” post, you see nothing but lectures about what an abuse that practice is. The poor potential convert’s question is hardly ever answered. Instead of using this as an opportunity to teach about the importance of doing a Spiritual Confession, the whole thing turns into a debate on what an abuse getting a blessing during Communion is. Some poor soul who is trying to make the journey home by going to Mass for the first time does not need to be lectured on what CDW documents say about he/she should do during Communion. Instead, that person needs spiritual direction and encouragement.

There is true liturgical abuse out there, and we should be on guard for it. But we also need to practice some discernment in what are people asking.

I have seen the level of discussion improve on the Traditional Catholicism board. The amount of bashing of JP2 has greatly decreased and people actually talk about spirituality. But the Liturgy board has really degraded. Honestly, people with questions on the sacraments and those with spiritual questions, should come to this board. They will get some real answers. The Liturgy board has been taken over by the spirit of confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top