Liturgical abuse!

[otjm]

it is also interesting that i just read the bulletin given at Church every sunday in which the bishop in my area says how the faithfull must receive the Communion in the hand. the communion on the hand he says that has been allowed by the pope to the America. he says that all we have to do is a slight bow before receiving.

Did the bishop actually say that people must receive in the hand? That would seem strange, since the universal norm is to receive on the tongue, and if that is the universal norm, no one can be denied that as their means of receiving. If the bulletin did not specifically quote him, then it may be possible that it was a misquote, or you may have misread it, or someone in the chancery said something on behalf of the bishop (and possibly not at his specific direction).

I am not trying to challenge you, but just curious.

 

[malphono]

That might actually be a good thing; being left alone by ‘head office’, so to speak.

If only that were true, it might be. But IMHO, it’s not and it isn’t.

Layman:

Have similar changes occured in:

Orthodox Christianity;
Eastern Catholic rites;

… as have occured in the Roman Catholic rite post Vat. II?

Interesting question but it’s the wrong forum, and while I could say a few things (about other than the Byzantines) I won’t in order not to derail this thread.

 

[otjm]

Yes but again we have to face the facts: what is commonly called the “Catholic Church” is the Latin Rite. We of the East and Orient are, in practical terms, but a footnote or an afterthought.

---

I refuse to sit in the back of the bus.

Not in my book; but I sometimes feel like the little Dutch boy with his thumb in the dike. The sad part is when someone who should know far, far better - a Cardinal in one of the dicasteries - sounds off as if the Roman rite was the whole Church.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Not in my book; but I sometimes feel like the little Dutch boy with his thumb in the dike. The sad part is when someone who should know far, far better - a Cardinal in one of the dicasteries - sounds off as if the Roman rite was the whole Church.

Why do you think I’m so noisy about it?

Interesting question but it’s the wrong forum, and while I could say a few things (about other than the Byzantines) I won’t in order not to derail this thread.

Good idea, malphono! I’m going to start a thread in the EC forum on this very topic!

 

[fulbert4605]

Not liturgical abuses, but the small things. (holding hands at the Our Father, Sign of Peace, EMHC, etc.) i see what Layman is talking about when they say this is working toward less reverence since what is being done has already potentially cheapened the Mass and will likely continue. Take care not to fall into small faults lest ye begin to fall into greater ones.

But notice i said “potentially”. Of course the OF is a valid Mass and has the same infinite potential that any other Catholic Mass does. But in many OF of Mass there is a greater chance of not reaching that potential since you have the Prayer to the Holy Trinity missing, not kneeling to receive Communion, ad versus populem just to name some. Prayer to Holy Trinity calls to mind the very purpose of the Mass (you wouldn’t believe how many years i went to an OF Mass without knowing the explicit purpose of the Mass. i only found out once i started attended an EF Mass). Kneeling before the Eucharist helps to feel that sense of reverence. Ad versus populem makes the priest feel more like a performer and it is much harder to understand the priest is acting as a mediator between God and man.

As humans, we need all the signs and help we can get since we fly into vanity and profane thoughts at the drop of a hat. If you can attend an OF Mass and feel you get as much out of it as an EF Mass, that’s great for you - your faith is much stronger than mine.

 

[MamaMax]

I would not even attempt to argue here, as I know you are all 1000 times more knowledgeable as I am on these issues of “abuse.” I would like, however to add a comment on who I am and how threads like this make me feel.

I am 38 (a post- Vatican 2 child), I attended Catholic school from K - 12. My parents are Catholic, my husband is Catholic, we attend Mass every Sunday, my 2 children attend Catholic school. I am a lector at my parish (I guess that is an abuse?), my daughter is an acolyte (An abuse?) My faith is vitally important to me, my children’s upbringing in the church is of utmost importance to me.

I come to this website to educate myself on my faith. I want to be the best Catholic I can be.

When I read threads like this, the message to me is clear: I am an inferior Catholic.

I hear amongst you a longing for “the good old days.” I can’t help but think of the ways that other people recollect the “old days.” Saying Rosaries during Mass because people didn’t understand or pay attention. Priests who had unchallenged authority, and used that power to abuse people. Catholics who attended Mass only because they were forced to, or because they were so afraid of going to Hell. People who felt only obligation in their faith, and no joy or love.

I believe in God’s love for me and my family. I believe that Jesus is present at Mass, even the lowly OF that I attend, and participate in, and enjoy. The Holy Spirit moves me, and I sometimes cry at the beauty of the hymns. I hold my childrens hands as we say the Lord’s Prayer together with our family in Christ. I have tears in my eyes as I type this.

So sue me.

 

[bpbasilphx]

But in many OF of Mass there is a greater chance of not reaching that potential since you have the Prayer to the Holy Trinity missing, not kneeling to receive Communion, ad versus populem just to name some. Prayer to Holy Trinity calls to mind the very purpose of the Mass (you wouldn’t believe how many years i went to an OF Mass without knowing the explicit purpose of the Mass. i only found out once i started attended an EF Mass).

---

**Fulbert:

1. What prayer to the Holy Trinity? Most of the prayers of the Mass are Trinitarian.
2. People wiser than either of us have determined that the basilican posture (for which there were rubrics in the pre-Pauline Roman Missal) and standing for Communion (which the Byzantine and other Eastern traditions have always done) do not keep people from “reaching the potential.”**

---

I am a lector at my parish (I guess that is an abuse?), my daughter is an acolyte (An abuse?)

---

These practices are allowed in the Latin rite. Therefore, they are not abuses.

 

[malphono]

… the basilican posture (for which there were rubrics in the pre-Pauline Roman Missal) …

Would you mind pointing me to that? OK, I admit it: I’m feeling lazy and really don’t want to read through the entire thing.

 

[Layman]

I would not even attempt to argue here, as I know you are all 1000 times more knowledgeable as I am on these issues of “abuse.” I would like, however to add a comment on who I am and how threads like this make me feel.

I am 38 (a post- Vatican 2 child), I attended Catholic school from K - 12. My parents are Catholic, my husband is Catholic, we attend Mass every Sunday, my 2 children attend Catholic school. I am a lector at my parish (I guess that is an abuse?), my daughter is an acolyte (An abuse?) My faith is vitally important to me, my children’s upbringing in the church is of utmost importance to me.

I come to this website to educate myself on my faith. I want to be the best Catholic I can be.

When I read threads like this, the message to me is clear: I am an inferior Catholic.

I hear amongst you a longing for “the good old days.” I can’t help but think of the ways that other people recollect the “old days.” Saying Rosaries during Mass because people didn’t understand or pay attention. Priests who had unchallenged authority, and used that power to abuse people. Catholics who attended Mass only because they were forced to, or because they were so afraid of going to Hell. People who felt only obligation in their faith, and no joy or love.

I believe in God’s love for me and my family. I believe that Jesus is present at Mass, even the lowly OF that I attend, and participate in, and enjoy. The Holy Spirit moves me, and I sometimes cry at the beauty of the hymns. I hold my childrens hands as we say the Lord’s Prayer together with our family in Christ. I have tears in my eyes as I type this.

So sue me.

I regret none of the above is relevant to the issue of whether the novelties added to, and changes made to, our site, either enhance reverence and sanctity, detract from them, or do nothing at all.

This is not a personal attack against you or others who favour the O.F. Our rite has changed drastically. This is the traditional sub-forum. So these changes are discussed here, with some heat

I think the changes made have had a negative effect and that bad catechesis means Roman Catholics are not aware of what they imply. This leaves the door open for further changes, like female deacons, married priests, priest-less ‘communion services’ and liturgical dancing.

One may like and enjoy such things. But they were not present 50 years ago in the Roman rite years ago and I don’t think their addition has helped, or will help, our religion.

The laity may have said the rosary at Mass years ago. Some priests may not have been saints. The concern nowadays is that the laity don’t know the rosary at all and there are many fewer priests. In some places, none at all i.e. closed and merged parishes.

Communion in the hand, stripping out churches, unvested lay people in the sanctuary, the priest versus-populum, pop hymns, lay people handing out communion play up the mundane and play down the sacred in the Roman Catholic rite; **if lay people can touch the Host with their hands, either we were doing it wrong for hundreds of years, or we have become more holy recently, or the Host has become less holy, or it’s just a matter of discipline, a practice, and nothing to get too worried about.

A contradiction: why does the priest have to be careful of particles of the Host if the laity can just hand it out and receive it in their hands with no such ceremony?** Or has that changed too? I haven’t watched an O.F. concecration closely.

Discuss.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Would you mind pointing me to that? OK, I admit it: I’m feeling lazy and really don’t want to read through the entire thing.

**I no longer have the Missale Romanum that had these pictures and directives–sorry. But I’ve seen them with my own eyes.

I especially remember the two diagrams showing how to cense an altar: one in the full east, the other a free-standing altar.**

 

[johnruss]

Is the passing of peace merely trivial, or maybe liturgical abuse?

It is certainly a post vatican II innovation, copied from the Protestants, not existing in the early church in its present form if in any form.

It is often just a bunch of strangers shaking hands with people they don’t know, trading trivialities, often meaningless. I have always felt a little awkward in the passing of the peace.

So I thought that the next time I went to Mass at the passing of the peace, when it came time for the passing of the peace, I would not shake anyone’s hand without asking them their name. Which made that part of the service more meaningful.

I guess the most grievous liturgical abuse comes from approaching the liturgy with a critical heart, and with not worshiping God in our heart, not Loving God with all of our heart and with all of our soul and with all of our minds.

 

[bpbasilphx]

This leaves the door open for further changes, like female deacons, married priests, priest-less ‘communion services’ and liturgical dancing.

---

**First, Layman, I am very happy to say here that I’ve never doubted your love and concern for the Church and her rites. Let’s get that understood.

But a few things:

1. Guess what? There already ARE married priests, and in the Latin Church, too! While I’ve not met one, I’ve met plenty of married Eastern Catholic priests with young children.

My personal opinion is that the Church (including the Latin Church) needs both celibate and married priests. I’m not saying married priests are a panacea for anything, but married and celibate priests have different and complementary gifts that can only be of great service to the faithful.

1. Guess what? There already is a book in the USA called SUNDAY CELEBRATIONS IN ABSENCE OF A PRIEST.
2. Guess what? CDW has already come out AGAINST so-called liturgical dancing. Any parish that does so is simply acting in disobedience to the Church.**

 

[Layman]

Dear Basil,

I know married priests exist. I vaguely recally marriage was forbidden so priests could not pass on their church to their children. Celibacy is also a sacrifice, I’d say, and a constant one. It’s a higher estate. It also means you only have to serve God and not your missus and kids as well.

I’m not suprised there’s a book about a Sunday service in the absense of a priest. But I understand such a thing is not a Mass, so you’re not obliged to attend it.

I had a thought recently: Suppose all these novelties, abuses or whatever you want to call them were tried in the past by our spiritual forefathers and dropped because they didn’t help the work? Or indeed, hindered it. We assume modern = better. Or that our forefathers were not as smart or educated as us.

I think that anything that survives for hundreds of years basically intact is likely most fit for purpose; like an old Rolls Royce that outlasts modern, gimmicky, cars.

I have the notion that a section of our clergy are educated, but not wise. They don’t want to be embarassed defending ‘outdated, bigoted, exclusive’ ideas to other educated people.They want to get ‘bums on seats’. They may also be trying to fight the decadence of our times by trying to get the laity more involved. I don’t think that has worked.

I suggest they try holiness. This can be attained by prayer, fasting, making sacrifices big and small, giving alms, visiting the sick, doing nothing that might displease God and all you can that would please Him. That will draw people to you like nothing else. Indeed, I recall saints who wanted to live like hermits soon found they had a lot of company!

Also, to paraphrase what another poster mentioned on this forum, when he showed a muslim around a Catholic church. It was something like:

The muslim said: “So you really believe your God is in that little gold box up there?”

His guide said: “Well, yes”.

The muslim said: “So why aren’t you on your knees?”

I think when people, individually and collectively, realise what a Mass is truly meant to accomplish, we’ll see a lot less crowd-pleasing in our churches.

After all, if billions can be spent on social issues, what price some beautiful vestments, a church that tries to mimic Heaven, a priest and people that all face the object of their worship and a schola that sings well, to please the great and awesome Lord Of All Creation? Doesn’t cost a lot.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Is the passing of peace merely trivial, or maybe liturgical abuse?

It is certainly a post vatican II innovation, copied from the Protestants, not existing in the early church in its present form if in any form.

It is often just a bunch of strangers shaking hands with people they don’t know, trading trivialities, often meaningless. I have always felt a little awkward in the passing of the peace.

So I thought that the next time I went to Mass at the passing of the peace, when it came time for the passing of the peace, I would not shake anyone’s hand without asking them their name. Which made that part of the service more meaningful.

I guess the most grievous liturgical abuse comes from approaching the liturgy with a critical heart, and with not worshiping God in our heart, not Loving God with all of our heart and with all of our soul and with all of our minds.

agree with you. today i even hear protestants praising the Catholic Church because they act just like them. ex: Charismatics ones.

VII seems to me is most about given people freedom to do what they want.

that is why the Mass varies so much. unlike before there was no difference.

i have no recollection of any priest abuse before VII. it does not mean it didnt ocurr. but we have learned to call abuse many things of the pass which were not considered abuse at the time. it seems to me that as we become more and more knowlegable we assume that we know better today. but looking the world around us, we dont seem to be doing much better, do we? just look all the troubles we are facing today, just trying to keep our children safe.

i have never been forced to go to Mass. and if i did, i must be gratefull for it. it gave me the faith which i wouldnt have if i was left to look for myself.

today, we do see innovations every time we go to Mass. this past Sunday. the priest calls all the pastoral council which is 90% women to the front of the Church before the Mass even started and make us clap to all of them. we are concentrating more and more in what we do than in what our Lord does for us. the language of Praises are very poor comparing to the Old. those who like attention are really loving all this.

but Our Lord says. Pray in secret, give alms in secret, fast in secret. why is that? so we call no attention to ourselves. but today, we must let everybody in the Church what we are doing. so we can receive praise and thanks. taking the concentration which should be in our God and not on ourselves.

i have never before seeing a priest without his habit, today i see priests walking around in t shirts and shorts. very strange.

God have Mercy on us all.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Dear Basil,

I know married priests exist. I vaguely recally marriage was forbidden so priests could not pass on their church to their children. Celibacy is also a sacrifice, I’d say, and a constant one. It’s a higher estate. It also means you only have to serve God and not your missus and kids as well.

I’m not suprised there’s a book about a Sunday service in the absense of a priest. But I understand such a thing is not a Mass, so you’re not obliged to attend it.

I had a thought recently: Suppose all these novelties, abuses or whatever you want to call them were tried in the past by our spiritual forefathers and dropped because they didn’t help the work? Or indeed, hindered it. We assume modern = better. Or that our forefathers were not as smart or educated as us.

I think that anything that survives for hundreds of years basically intact is likely most fit for purpose; like an old Rolls Royce that outlasts modern, gimmicky, cars.

I have the notion that a section of our clergy are educated, but not wise. They don’t want to be embarassed defending ‘outdated, bigoted, exclusive’ ideas to other educated people.They want to get ‘bums on seats’. They may also be trying to fight the decadence of our times by trying to get the laity more involved. I don’t think that has worked.

I suggest they try holiness. This can be attained by prayer, fasting, making sacrifices big and small, giving alms, visiting the sick, doing nothing that might displease God and all you can that would please Him. That will draw people to you like nothing else. Indeed, I recall saints who wanted to live like hermits soon found they had a lot of company!

Also, to paraphrase what another poster mentioned on this forum, when he showed a muslim around a Catholic church. It was something like:

The muslim said: “So you really believe your God is in that little gold box up there?”

His guide said: “Well, yes”.

The muslim said: “So why aren’t you on your knees?”

I think when people, individually and collectively, realise what a Mass is truly meant to accomplish, we’ll see a lot less crowd-pleasing in our churches.

After all, if billions can be spent on social issues, what price some beautiful vestments, a church that tries to mimic Heaven, a priest and people that all face the object of their worship and a schola that sings well, to please the great and awesome Lord Of All Creation? Doesn’t cost a lot.

you said something very important here. it seems that the Clergy became ashamed of their old outdated Catholic Faith and want to modernize just like everybody else. i believe this is true. that is why we never hear priest talking about the Fathers of our faith. instead the talks is about moderns times and things and people of our days…

 

[bpbasilphx]

Is the passing of peace merely trivial, or maybe liturgical abuse?

It is certainly a post vatican II innovation, copied from the Protestants, not existing in the early church in its present form if in any form.

---

**Since the Kiss of Peace before Communion is an ancient part of the Roman Rite, modifying it to the modern Sign of Peace can hardly be called an abuse, especially if it’s permitted by the rubrics. And nothing permitted by the rubrics can be called an “abuse.”

It was therefore not copied from the Protestants.

To say that the Kiss of Peace exchanged by the faithful did not exist in the early church is simply to be ignorant of liturgical history.

How it actually is getting done in some modern Latin parishes might need some correction for the sake of orderliness. I think that Pope Benedict XVI has a good idea in wishing to see it transferred to before the Offertory.**

---

that is why the Mass varies so much. unlike before there was no difference.

---

**This statment that there were no differences in how Mass was celebrated is simply not true.

Even two priests of the same diocese would have subtle differences.**

 

[malphono]

I no longer have the Missale Romanum that had these pictures and directives–sorry. But I’ve seen them with my own eyes.

I especially remember the two diagrams showing how to cense an altar: one in the full east, the other a free-standing altar.

Ah yes, now I know exactly what you mean. The diagrams for incensing a free-standing altar were, if memory serves, restored to the Missal in 1962. But note that it represents merely a free-standing (as opposed to a fixed) altar. It neither says nor implies anything contrary to ad orientem celebration being the norm. Bear in mind, as well, that the rubrics even in the OF editio typica presume ad orientem celebration. (And yes, as I’ve mentioned in other threads, the major basilicas in Rome itself have traditionally been at least partial exceptions.)

 

[bpbasilphx]

This leaves the door open for further changes, like female deacons, married priests, priest-less ‘communion services’ and liturgical dancing.

---

**BTW, there have ALWAYS been “priestless services”. When Benedictine choir nuns chant the Office, or pious laymen read the Liturgy of the Hours in groups or individually, these are still services of the Church, though a priest not be present. **

 

[OhMalley]

Dear Basil,

I know married priests exist. I vaguely recally marriage was forbidden so priests could not pass on their church to their children…

Malarkey. I would people would not try to push this sorta misinformation as being factual.

 

[Aramis]

Malarkey. I would people would not try to push this sorta misinformation as being factual.

There is pretty good documentation that numerous bishops were having problems (and complaining to Rome about them) with the children of priests claiming that pastorships were the same as hereditary fiefs in the timeframe 950-1100. The issue came from the practice of letting a priest’s son, if a priest, serve as associate and later pastor in the same church as their father.

As for married catholic priests, I know one. Rev. Fr. Scott Medlock.

I know another who used to be married. Rev. Fr. Erik Wiseman. He’s a widower.