Liturgical abuse!

[Walking_Home]

I read 241, and I say you don’t read my posts. One does not have to read the status of someone else’s soul to see behavior that is over the top. And one does not have to determine the status of another’s soul to see that individual may be, for example, OCD. That is not a soul issue; it is a psychological issue.

My response in 241 was to dsulpizio —so lets stick to the content of dsulpizio post and leave aside for now your contributions of anal behavior --OCD etc.
Since you have read the post --it is obvious that dsulpizio was attributing the behavior of others to being “so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error elsewhere” --" a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished by their own eyes when they focus on the errors elsewhere. Now --someone would have to be blind not to see that dsulpizio -did in fact make it a soul issue. This prompted by response in post 241.

I have read your posts. I have invited you to discuss the issue of what may drive some people to an activity and attitude which appears at least in part to be OCD, and the best response you can come up with is “you can’t look at their souls and judge them”?

I already said I agreed with you on that point, but you keep going back to it.

The issue being discussed was not OCD or anal retentive behavior–it was dsulpizio’s post which did not deal with those issues. I’ve included below your first response to me. Lets focus on the parts I have bolded. As to your first statement —as can be seen --dsulpizio own words speak against what you wrote. She/he made it a point (twice) - to attribute their behavior to their state of “sinfulness etc.”

Now to your last statements in your post below. I noticed you made a change. dsulpizio did Not attribute sinfulness to the behavior (as you state) – but to the driving(motivating) force behind the behavior —to their state of sinfulness that caused the reaction (behavior).
You conclude with --“his observation being accurate if not well described”. What is it that you agree is accurate if not well described in dsulpizio’s post. It could not be anything with anal retentive/OCD behavior–because this was Your take on what drives certain behavior and Not dsulpizio’s which centered on the state of sinfulness as the motivating force. Where you super imposing Your take on anal retentive/OCD behavior onto dsulpizio’s post in order to come up with --“his observation being accurate if not well described”. This would be putting Your words in dsulpizio’s mouth.

otjm:

I am not sure that dsulpizio was trying so much to speak to the state of their souls as to their demeanor and what appears to be driving them. People who respond as do the subgroup he describes are not limited to Catholics or Traditionalists; they show up elsewhere. While I would not describe their behavior in terms of being sin driven, there is ample literature in legitimate psychological studies showing that some people who fall into a general category of anal retentive can end up in a sub category of those who are particularly driven to minute observation of “law abaiding” in others as that is an area that is most compelling within their lives.

I have had too much experience with people who are very rigid about observing minute details of behavioral “law” (“thus and so has to be done exactly this way”) not to be able to identify with his comments. There comes a point where concern for following, for example here, the rubrics, crosses over to an obsession with the minutia. That does not say that everyone who wants to follow the laws, or wants them observed, is obsessive. It helps to have a bit of common sense when discussing the issue.

Then, again, Voltaire pointed out that common sense is not all that common…

While I agree with you that we are all sinful, and I disagree with the poster in terms of using the word “sinful” to describe the behavior, his observation is accurate if not well described.

OK, maybe you just don’t want to deal with the issue. Fine and dandy. But you could simply say you don’t want to talk about it, instead of repeating an answer that has already been defined out of the conversation.

Or maybe you don’t agree that psychology has any use or validity. You could say that too, as the Church does not view psychology as looking at someone’s soul and judging them.

If you don’t want to play in the sandbox, that is fine; but saying that you won’t play in this sandbox because someone else has a toy in their sandbox you don’t like makes no sense.

I read the other poster’s post; I read your response to his post (which I have pointed out, I agree with); I ahve posited a different issue, and you keep returning to the one you and I agree about; that is not responding to my comments. So yes, considering that you and I agree that one has neither the right nor in fact the ability to look into another’s soul, dragging that issue out to reply to me is a red herring.

otjm --that is the point --the discussion was not about a different issue (psychology) but the content of dsulpizio’s post. That is what I address --and you responded to me --bringing in the “psychology” --turning the discussion in direction that did not deal the post or my response to him/her.

 

[maurin]

Ignoring 2 millenia.

sadly, yes.

Hogwash. .

I agree. their ignorance/ignoring of the previous 2 millenia certainly is hogwash. for once I agree with you.

 

[otjm]

My response in 241 was to dsulpizio —so lets stick to the content of dsulpizio post and leave aside for now your contributions of anal behavior --OCD etc.
Since you have read the post --it is obvious that dsulpizio was attributing the behavior of others to being “so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error elsewhere” --" a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished by their own eyes when they focus on the errors elsewhere. Now --someone would have to be blind not to see that dsulpizio -did in fact make it a soul issue. This prompted by response in post 241.

The issue being discussed was not OCD or anal retentive behavior–it was dsulpizio’s post which did not deal with those issues. I’ve included below your first response to me. Lets focus on the parts I have bolded. As to your first statement —as can be seen --dsulpizio own words speak against what you wrote. She/he made it a point (twice) - to attribute their behavior to their state of “sinfulness etc.”

Now to your last statements in your post below. I noticed you made a change. dsulpizio did Not attribute sinfulness to the behavior (as you state) – but to the driving(motivating) force behind the behavior —to their state of sinfulness that caused the reaction (behavior).
You conclude with --“his observation being accurate if not well described”. What is it that you agree is accurate if not well described in dsulpizio’s post. It could not be anything with anal retentive/OCD behavior–because this was Your take on what drives certain behavior and Not dsulpizio’s which centered on the state of sinfulness as the motivating force. Where you super imposing Your take on anal retentive/OCD behavior onto dsulpizio’s post in order to come up with --“his observation being accurate if not well described”. This would be putting Your words in dsulpizio’s mouth.

otjm --that is the point --the discussion was not about a different issue (psychology) but the content of dsulpizio’s post. That is what I address --and you responded to me --bringing in the “psychology” --turning the discussion in direction that did not deal the post or my response to him/her.

His/her observations are the behavior set out - a hyper-critical approach to minutiae that supposedly have to do with reverence, but are not even behavior moderated by the Church. As in, there is nothing in the rubrics as to how one holds one’s hands going up to or returning from receivning Communion, in the EF. dsulpizioattributed it to a sinful issue; you and I disagree that we can go there or should go there.

The behavior dsulpizio observed I have also observed. And I have observed that behavior in a very small sampling of Traditionalists, and I have seen it in a very small part of that very small sample. However, I ahve also observed it elsewhere, outside the Church.

They are the “problem children”, people driven by a need for order and precision far beyond what any normal person would be invvolved with. and they can have an impact far beyond the immediate issue, which often is trivial to begin with. Their impact, however, is disproportionate.

I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth; I am simply saying that I ahve observed the same behavior, but I don’t ascribe it to the moral status of the person. Rather, I suggest that it is symptomatic of something much larger than rubrics or reverence, and is a psychological issue. and when confronted by it (and I have been), I find it very difficult to deal with. Challenges to their perception of correct behavior results in a response similar to a non-swimming person in deep water when you take their lfie ring away. Ony instead of taking a life saving issue away, you are simply challenging the relevance of their issue.

I am not trying to get between you and dsulpizio, so much as to say that I agree with your comment, but I think the behavior is worth examining. People that obsessed with such minutiae need help; it may be well beyond anything I can do.

and as to what exactly dsulpizio attributed to sinfulness - the behavior, the drive behind the behavior, or some variation on the theme, I may have short-handed the issue. Sorry, my razor is a bit dull and I don’t always split the hairs just so.

 

[RyanML]

sadly, yes.

I agree. their ignorance/ignoring of the previous 2 millenia certainly is hogwash. for once I agree with you.

Maurin,

I’m not disputing what you say, but can you give some examples of how these priests, while celebrating a reverent novus ordo and preaching orthodoxy, are still compromising the faith?

 

[maurin]

Maurin,

I’m not disputing what you say, but can you give some examples of how these priests, while celebrating a reverent novus ordo and preaching orthodoxy, are still compromising the faith?

it was in the context of this post:

the JP2 priests of whom you speak are the next generation of the hippie generation, otjm. Don’t be fooled by them–they are the neo-cons, the new conservatives–disguising the novelties in chant and in vestments, joyfully and reverently ignoring 2 millenia of their patrimony.

 

[Walking_Home]

His/her observations are the behavior set out - a hyper-critical approach to minutiae that supposedly have to do with reverence, but are not even behavior moderated by the Church. As in, there is nothing in the rubrics as to how one holds one’s hands going up to or returning from receivning Communion, in the EF. dsulpizioattributed it to a sinful issue; you and I disagree that we can go there or should go there.

The behavior dsulpizio observed I have also observed. And I have observed that behavior in a very small sampling of Traditionalists, and I have seen it in a very small part of that very small sample. However, I ahve also observed it elsewhere, outside the Church.

They are the “problem children”, people driven by a need for order and precision far beyond what any normal person would be invvolved with. and they can have an impact far beyond the immediate issue, which often is trivial to begin with. Their impact, however, is disproportionate.

I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth; I am simply saying that I ahve observed the same behavior, but I don’t ascribe it to the moral status of the person. Rather, I suggest that it is symptomatic of something much larger than rubrics or reverence, and is a psychological issue. and when confronted by it (and I have been), I find it very difficult to deal with. Challenges to their perception of correct behavior results in a response similar to a non-swimming person in deep water when you take their lfie ring away. Ony instead of taking a life saving issue away, you are simply challenging the relevance of their issue.

I am not trying to get between you and dsulpizio, so much as to say that I agree with your comment, but I think the behavior is worth examining. People that obsessed with such minutiae need help; it may be well beyond anything I can do.

dsulpizio makes them out to be sin ridden people --and you —make them out to be mentally unstable “problem children” . But it also needs to be considered that the outer behavior displayed by the people (within the context of attending Mass) is not symptomatic of some psychological issue—but brought about by real, true, honest to goodness concern for the Mass itself. For decades -in many places the Mass has been treated with outright disrespect. So now people themselves have taken action to keep/bring back stability.

and as to what exactly dsulpizio attributed to sinfulness - the behavior, the drive behind the behavior, or some variation on the theme, I may have short-handed the issue. Sorry, my razor is a bit dull and I don’t always split the hairs just so.

To your last statement – I hope you are not in a field where splitting hairs can make the difference between someones life or death.

 

[IVDAE]

44 YEARS, AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL THE WHOLE “ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH” WAS CHANGED.ASIDE FROM LITURGY, SOME OTHER TEACHINGS, POLICY, AND STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS CHANGED TOO.

IT WAS SAD THAT MAY CHURCHES ARE REMOVING THEIR COMMUNION RAILS, ADDING OR REMOVING RITE DURING HOLY MASS LIKE CONFITEOR, GLORIA , AND CREED.SOME OF THE PRIESTS ARE ABUSING THE HOLY EUCHARIST LIKE SWAYING IT,AND ONE OF OUR LITURGIST SAYS THAT “THE HOST IN THE TABERNACLE IS DISCOURAGED TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE HOLY COMMUNION BECAUSE HOST IN THE TABERNACLE IS LOOK LIKE A LEFTOVER BREAD”!!! IT IS SAD THAT THEY LOOK AT THE HOLY COMMUNION AS A MEAL AND NOT A COMMUNE W/ GOD.AND AS OUR LITURGIST SAYS THAT THE SACRED HOST IS LIKE A “LEFTOVER BREAD” HE MEANS THAT HE DO NOT CONSIDER THE HOST AS THE BODY OF GOD!! IT IS A ACT OF A DESCRECRATION IN THE BODY OF CHRIST!!! EVEN A PRIESTS, THEY DO NOT ENCOURAGE THE FAITHFUL IN VISITING THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION. AND IT SHOWS THAT THE ONE WHO DO NOT CONFESS BEFORE RECEIVING THE HOLY COMMUNION ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE!!!

EVEN IN MODESTY, FAITHFUL NOW HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT AN APPROPRIATE DRESS TO WEAR IN THE CHURCH.IT IS SAD THAT THE TEENAGERS ARE WEARING IMMODEST CHLOTHES INSIDE A CHURCH!! IF WE GO BACK TO TIME BEFORE V2 PEOPLE DO NOT WEAR IMMODEST CLOTHES, BUT THE PROPER ONE THAT SHOULD BE WEAR AT THE CHURCH.IN COMMUNION THEY ENCOURAGE COMMUNION BY HANDS, AND THE HOLDING HANDS AT THE LORD`S PRAYER.AND ALSO MANY LAITIES WERE NOT DEDICATED AT THE SERVICE, THEY ARE THE ONE WHO ALSO ABUSING THE LITURGY.AS I SEEN MAY LAITIES LIKE ALTAR SERVER ARE THE ONE WHO ARE ROLE MODEL OF IMMORALITIES VICE AND VIOLENCE.

44 YEARS AFTER V2 NOT LITURGY ALONE HAS BEEN CHANGED BUT THE WHOLE CHURCH.EVEN THE PRIESTS AND SPECIALLY THE FAITHFUL.

LET US PRAY FOR THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

PAX TIBI

 

[bpbasilphx]

dear ivdae, this thread is about the proper use of the term “liturgical abuse,” not vatican 2 or post-conciliar developments.

in any case, please, don’t shout. all caps is considered shouting.

 

[otjm]

dsulpizio makes them out to be sin ridden people --and you —make them out to be mentally unstable “problem children” . But it also needs to be considered that the outer behavior displayed by the people (within the context of attending Mass) is not symptomatic of some psychological issue—but brought about by real, true, honest to goodness concern for the Mass itself. For decades -in many places the Mass has been treated with outright disrespect. So now people themselves have taken action to keep/bring back stability.

The behavior dsulpizio remarked about and to which I responded is behavior outside of the norm. Correcting someone about how they hold their hands, getting heated about a hemline at or below the knee, and other issues ( a nunmber of which I have heard in my presence) which are hyper critical of issues the Church itself does not wade in on, are the issues I am speakng about. I agree that the Mass has had outright disrespect in many places; I have observed it myself. I am not speaking to that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I just wonder if the holy father is doing anything to stop the changes. it seems to me he is not. sometimes i listen to him and dont know what is he saying, and to whom he is speaking to. i dont know if he is talking to the conservatives Catholics or the liberals.
i dont know what to make of his homilies. i know that things are getting more and more liberal. when i see today in my parish, the priest standing to the side and the women is the one preparing the table for the Eucharist and the women is the one finishing it. it is scary. the women is the one cleaning it up and gathering the remain host and gathering the cups with the Host and she is the putting them in the Tabernacle while the priest is sitting in his chair. sincerely i dont know what is going on. i dont know if these priests are preparing these women for priesthood or not. all i know is these things are sneaking on us quietly. i dont really know where BXVI stands right now. perhaps some of you have some to say about this.

 

[otjm]

I just wonder if the holy father is doing anything to stop the changes. it seems to me he is not. sometimes i listen to him and dont know what is he saying, and to whom he is speaking to. i dont know if he is talking to the conservatives Catholics or the liberals.
i dont know what to make of his homilies. i know that things are getting more and more liberal. when i see today in my parish, the priest standing to the side and the women is the one preparing the table for the Eucharist and the women is the one finishing it.

Having lived long enough to have seen 5 popes die, I perhaps have a perspective that others don’t.

The first issue is that the Pope does not micro-manage the Church. In conversations, that seems to come as a shock to some people; but the fact is that the Pope is the Pope of the universal Church; not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church and that includes all the rites of the Eastern Churches which are in union with Rome. In the United States alone in the Roman rite alone, there are something like 18,950 +/- parishes. The short of it is that he has no clue what is going ion in your parish or mine, and he never is going to have a clue about that.

The second is that I have seen as many, if not more bishops (actually archbishops) either die or move to other locations in the same time. And they too do not micro-manage each parish. Most people in most parishes have never had so much as a couple of sentances with their bishop. There is simply too much to do for a bishop to be in each and every one of his parishes. Would that we could see them more often.

There are still rubrics which do not get followed exactly; some of the issues are more important than others, some of the issues are due to a lack of understanding, or to keep the peace on larger issues; sometimes the rubrics are not followed because of an attitude.

The world is not falling apart. The priests who were the most experimental are one by one dying off or retiring. The priests who are young - often called the John Paul 2 priests - simply do not have the issues that priests twice their age have, or had. And the same could be said for anyone who is 30, compared to anyone who is 60; they each have their own issues. The young priests by and large follow the rubrics and say Mass reverently. Some of them may like the EF, some don’t, but that is not an issue of legitimacy.

Some of the rubrics have changed, and some of what you observe is within the gamut of what is allowed. Some of it may not be. No, no one is “preparing” women to be preists; that simply is not going to happen within the legitimate Church. There have been a few screwball groups that have for all intents and purposes left the Church, and gone through ordination ceremonies with women, and as Rome has repeatedly said, such activities have noe effect, no value, and are not part of the Church.

You can complain to your bishop. Given the structure of the diocese or archdiocese, there is an extremely good chance that he will never even see your letter; if you managed to get an appointment with him, there is a very good chance that, assuming what you reported was actually a violation of the rules, nothing would get done. Perhaps the pastor would be called in for a chat; and even if that happened, most likely there would be no follow up.

There is no excuse for not following the rubrics; the reality is that in some areas they don’t get followed. Much of the abuse of the rubrics has slacked off, even though it may not appear to have done so; and more will slack off in the future as the priests who have been responsible for it die or retire.

As to things getting more liberal, that depends on how you define liberal, and from what starting point. But to answer your question, the Pope isn’t speaking to liberals or conservatives. He is speaking to Catholics.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Having lived long enough to have seen 5 popes die, I perhaps have a perspective that others don’t.

The first issue is that the Pope does not micro-manage the Church. In conversations, that seems to come as a shock to some people; but the fact is that the Pope is the Pope of the universal Church; not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church and that includes all the rites of the Eastern Churches which are in union with Rome. In the United States alone in the Roman rite alone, there are something like 18,950 +/- parishes. The short of it is that he has no clue what is going ion in your parish or mine, and he never is going to have a clue about that.

The second is that I have seen as many, if not more bishops (actually archbishops) either die or move to other locations in the same time. And they too do not micro-manage each parish. Most people in most parishes have never had so much as a couple of sentances with their bishop. There is simply too much to do for a bishop to be in each and every one of his parishes. Would that we could see them more often.

There are still rubrics which do not get followed exactly; some of the issues are more important than others, some of the issues are due to a lack of understanding, or to keep the peace on larger issues; sometimes the rubrics are not followed because of an attitude.

The world is not falling apart. The priests who were the most experimental are one by one dying off or retiring. The priests who are young - often called the John Paul 2 priests - simply do not have the issues that priests twice their age have, or had. And the same could be said for anyone who is 30, compared to anyone who is 60; they each have their own issues. The young priests by and large follow the rubrics and say Mass reverently. Some of them may like the EF, some don’t, but that is not an issue of legitimacy.

Some of the rubrics have changed, and some of what you observe is within the gamut of what is allowed. Some of it may not be. No, no one is “preparing” women to be preists; that simply is not going to happen within the legitimate Church. There have been a few screwball groups that have for all intents and purposes left the Church, and gone through ordination ceremonies with women, and as Rome has repeatedly said, such activities have noe effect, no value, and are not part of the Church.

You can complain to your bishop. Given the structure of the diocese or archdiocese, there is an extremely good chance that he will never even see your letter; if you managed to get an appointment with him, there is a very good chance that, assuming what you reported was actually a violation of the rules, nothing would get done. Perhaps the pastor would be called in for a chat; and even if that happened, most likely there would be no follow up.

There is no excuse for not following the rubrics; the reality is that in some areas they don’t get followed. Much of the abuse of the rubrics has slacked off, even though it may not appear to have done so; and more will slack off in the future as the priests who have been responsible for it die or retire.

As to things getting more liberal, that depends on how you define liberal, and from what starting point. But to answer your question, the Pope isn’t speaking to liberals or conservatives. He is speaking to Catholics.

thanks for your response. you give me some hope that things may get better in the future. God bless. i have been asking our Lord, if it His will that a holy priest may come to our city soon and be an example for others. God knows we need one here yesterday.

 

[bpbasilphx]

when i see today in my parish, the priest standing to the side and the women is the one preparing the table for the Eucharist and the women is the one finishing it. it is scary. the women is the one cleaning it up and gathering the remain host and gathering the cups with the Host and she is the putting them in the Tabernacle while the priest is sitting in his chair.

---

**All these things you are describing are properly DIACONAL functions.

To give things most charitable explanation, could your Priest have mobility problems?**

 

[otjm]

thanks for your response. you give me some hope that things may get better in the future. God bless. i have been asking our Lord, if it His will that a holy priest may come to our city soon and be an example for others. God knows we need one here yesterday.

Hang in there. There is danger in presuming that ll you read on the internet is true, and that it is not only true but is also reflective of all other areas. Complaints about liturgy are often more driven by the locale than by a universal. there are almost 19,000 parishes. They are not all bad; and in my experience, the bad ones are in the minority and falling off. But then, I live on the West Coast, and my experience stops short of Chicago.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hang in there. There is danger in presuming that ll you read on the internet is true, and that it is not only true but is also reflective of all other areas. Complaints about liturgy are often more driven by the locale than by a universal. there are almost 19,000 parishes. They are not all bad; and in my experience, the bad ones are in the minority and falling off. But then, I live on the West Coast, and my experience stops short of Chicago.

well in my area i have not found a reverent Church yet. everyon e i went to is worse than the other. my parish is one that have more reverence, yet these new priests that just came in are not so reverent. the Mass is rushed and some things were changed. we always have someone to clapp to in every Mass. the priest act very slappy during prayers. one time i asked the main priest when he would celebrate a LM, he answered rapidly, Never. one thing i see in these priests they seem not to understand how important it is how we should present ourselves to the King. i remember when Mary came to Jesus and washed His feet and dried with her hair and her behavior moved Jesus, her reverence and recognition of the King. today, i see these priests make believe that we are just equal to the Master. it makes me very sad. the way they talk is like they received their formation in protestants seminaries. this priest also said one time when i went for confession, that he could not forgive sins. what happened to the commandment of Christ: “whosever sins you forgive, it will be forgiven and …”

God bless.

 

[wisdomseeker]

when i see today in my parish, the priest standing to the side and the women is the one preparing the table for the Eucharist and the women is the one finishing it. it is scary. the women is the one cleaning it up and gathering the remain host and gathering the cups with the Host and she is the putting them in the Tabernacle while the priest is sitting in his chair.

---

**All these things you are describing are properly DIACONAL functions.

To give things most charitable explanation, could your Priest have mobility problems?**

no, he has no problem with mobility. but i am sure this gives idea to women who desire to assume places like the priesthood within the Church.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If these and similar practices distress you, wisdomseeker, is there not an Eastern Catholic church near you?
(Note that I said Eastern Catholic, NOT Eastern Orthodox.)

 

[wisdomseeker]

If these and similar practices distress you, wisdomseeker, is there not an Eastern Catholic church near you?
(Note that I said Eastern Catholic, NOT Eastern Orthodox.)

not that i know of. please understand, i am not yet complete distressed about it. but it does shocks me what is going on. but i do have hope that we will get back to our roots soon or later. today i watched the High Mass in EWTN. how beautifull. i feel better now.

 

[MatthewAnthony]

While there is no denying that unfortunately there have been, and even still are; those who do willingly challenge the Church in almost every aspect - including liturgical norms and practices, we as the layity need to take care to remember our place as that of the temporal realm. While I, if I were ordained; would not condone such actions - I as a lay person have no authority to condem them, for the layity in general are not fully educated in the liturgy as ordained ministers are.

While such errors are painful, many of the posts also discuss items such as the holding of hands at the Lords Prayer, or raising of hands in the Orens position as “liturgical abuses”? While these may not be proper during the Celebration of the Mass, at least one critical element is missing for this to be an abuse - and that is the intentional willingness of those performing the act to do so with intent of dissent. The layity who may have been incorrectly taught or instructed can not be held to the standard of liturgical abuse. Unless there is clarification on this readily available to the layity either by teaching from the pulpit or general publication the layity at large have no way of knowing what is a “liturgical norm” and what is not.

Again if I were in a position to either condone or correct I would not condone and correct error where error is present, but as a lay person this is beyond my role in the temporal realm. We should take care not to condem those, who through no fault of thier own; perform practices which are not necessarily proper during the Mass, but do not rise to the level of true “abuse” as they truly do not affect the licity of the Mass itself. The attention we pay to these actions gives one pause to reflect on the question “What are we doing during those parts of the Mass, that we have such time to note and condem”?. If the conduct of the Congregation during the Mass itself is so noisy, and distracting then perhaps it is best to look for another parish?

 

[wisdomseeker]

While there is no denying that unfortunately there have been, and even still are; those who do willingly challenge the Church in almost every aspect - including liturgical norms and practices, we as the layity need to take care to remember our place as that of the temporal realm. While I, if I were ordained; would not condone such actions - I as a lay person have no authority to condem them, for the layity in general are not fully educated in the liturgy as ordained ministers are.

While such errors are painful, many of the posts also discuss items such as the holding of hands at the Lords Prayer, or raising of hands in the Orens position as “liturgical abuses”? While these may not be proper during the Celebration of the Mass, at least one critical element is missing for this to be an abuse - and that is the intentional willingness of those performing the act to do so with intent of dissent. The layity who may have been incorrectly taught or instructed can not be held to the standard of liturgical abuse. Unless there is clarification on this readily available to the layity either by teaching from the pulpit or general publication the layity at large have no way of knowing what is a “liturgical norm” and what is not.

Again if I were in a position to either condone or correct I would not condone and correct error where error is present, but as a lay person this is beyond my role in the temporal realm. We should take care not to condem those, who through no fault of thier own; perform practices which are not necessarily proper during the Mass, but do not rise to the level of true “abuse” as they truly do not affect the licity of the Mass itself. The attention we pay to these actions gives one pause to reflect on the question “What are we doing during those parts of the Mass, that we have such time to note and condem”?. If the conduct of the Congregation during the Mass itself is so noisy, and distracting then perhaps it is best to look for another parish?

while is noble all that you said. i dont think anyone here is condemn any one. i see we are talking about various practice within the Church today that was not there before… like in my parish the priests hold hands with the altar girls in the Sanctuary. do you thing they should know better. leaving may be an alternative, but perhaps we should talk to the priests and let him know our position on what is happening within the Church. they need our help. they need our support. how would they know if no one tells them. besides some areas do not have any parish that is better than the others. i went to visit another Church and what i saw was the priest sittting side by side with the altar girl and boy. perhaps all we are doing is voicing our concerns and not condemn any one.

God bless.