Liturgical abuse!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cluny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is good to hear that there is no condemnation intended, but discussion about potential abuses. The question now becomes one of how & when are we voicing our concern and holding such discussions?

While I understand the concern expressed over holding hands during the Lords prayer (even by a Priest with Altar Servers in the Sanctuary) as not being the norm conveyed by the GIRM, unfortunately there is not clear & definitive guidance from Rome on this, which does not make it correct; but it also leaves open the door for the practice to continue. The critical element here is that this action, while not the norm; does not make the Mass Illicit. If there is clear & definitive guidance from Rome in this area then that should be followed. Regarding the Priest knowing better, perhaps - if he was taught fully & correctly during his formation in the Seminary, but perhaps not if he was not taught fully or correctly, and unless we know this we could not readily & justly assert he should know better.

Regarding the Priest sitting with Altar servers: Without knowing the configuration of the sanctuary in that particular Church, the Position of the Celebrant’s chair flanked on the sides by a chair for the Deacon & Altar servers has been the norm for some time - even pre-vatican II, so on this point I am a bit confused, is the Priest sitting in the Congregation with the Altar Servers? or Somehwere other than the Celebrants Chair? If so then there is concern because of the obvious message conveyed by the Vacancy of the Celebrants chair. If the Altar servers are stationed to one side or the other, or even one on either side of the Priest this has been the Norm for a long time. Again, if the seating of the Celebrant and the Priest, while it may not be the norm; does not violate the substance and matter of the Sacrament it does not make the Mass Illicit.

As one of the previous posters, who has lived a long life and seen several Papacies; stated while a number of these may not be following the Norms set forth in the Rubrics, there are those which are allowed - such as girls serving on the Altar. While the Rubrics and Subsequent clarifying documents state the preferences is for boys to be Altar servers due to the link to the Priestly Vocation, in circumstances where boys are not or do not become altar servers then girls can be altar servers. Herein lies a bigger question & dilema - why are boys no longer answering the Priests call for altar servers - keep in mind the link to the Priestly Vocation here. Again, the Rubrics are there to be followed - but failing to follow various aspects of the Rubrics to not result in an Illicit or Invalid Mass.

Regarding leaving a parish: I suggested t his only as a last resort, and only if the issues mentioned have become such a great distraction that it prevents anyone from focusing on the Mass itself and participating fully in the Eucharistic Mystery. It was not meant to be a statement such as “well if you don’t like that Parish - just try another”, as that is one of the real issues today.

While I understand the concern among the layity about such issues, perhaps I may humbly offer a counter topic for focus and discussion to balance things out a bit. “The abuses of the Layity”, perhaps focusing on how we fall short?, how do our thoughts, words, and actions hinder the response to God’s call either as Altar Servers or to the religious life?, why in a day & age when we hear “shortage of priests” do we seek to have clergy performing the roles correctly removed from thier assignments because they do not give us what we want?

Lest we forget, where do our Priests and Religous come from? They are called from among us, the layity; and if we the layity are doing nothing but voicing criticism, condeming (in some circumstances), finding fault with Priest & Religous and also discouraging vocations because of these concerns, then how can we or should we expect the situation to change? Herein lies one of our true roles as the lay faithful - we are to build up the Church and her Clergy & Religous, not tear them down! Promote, Foster, Encourage vocations even amid and especially during such times of confusion for the answer to correcting such error is not just to discuss among ourselves, but to usher in more solid, sound and genuine vocations and help the Church bring forth new, devout and dedicated Priests and Religous!, this should be our joyous mission, not our burdensome and haphazard goal.

Let us reflect a moment on where the failings, which we are quick to point out; in our Clergy & Religous come from, failings such as personal agendas, experimentation, “individualistic freedoms” etc… Since the Clergy are called from among us, and come from among us then it follows that such failings are human and also come from among us, so if we have them, then why do we hold Priests & Religous to a higher standard than we set for ourselves? - That is God’s call to them and us, live the life of Christ follow His example and strive to be saints!, if we the layity fail to live this life, then how can we expect anything more from the Priests & Religious who do answer the call? And how can we be so quick to criticize, judge & impune them before we do the same to oursleves? Why do no young men answer the call to become altar servers?, acolytes, & Priests? - Do we really need to ask, is this not obvious? Now don’t take me wrong in this last paragraph, I do not condone intentional dissent from anyone either openly displayed or passively carried out, but intentional dissent is different from accidental or unkowingly not following the norms or acting on the basis of improper or poor teaching, but as I often hear from many these days “Charity starts in the Home with the Family” this applies even more so to the Church Family, the layity and Clergy, Charity truly does start in the Home with the Family, perhaps it is time to practice this Charity many of us toss about in daily conversation?
 
Thank you for an excellent post, MatthewAnthony.

One small thing, though - it’s ‘laity’, not ‘layity’ - I hope you don’t mind my mentioning it.
 
Thank you -paperwight. The effects of typing posts at such an early our of the morning. Combining Lay and laity, no abuse intended I assure all. 🙂
 
MatthewAnthony said:
Herein lies a bigger question & dilema - why are boys no longer answering the Priests call for altar servers
Click to expand...
My short answer: parents are more concerned with making sure their children have “self esteem” than they are in parenting. We did not have altar girls when I was an altar boy. Had I said I didn’t want to serve because I would ahve to do so with a girl, my parents would have given me an “attitude adjustment”. This issue is not about boys serving with girls; it is about parents worrying that they are going to hurt their precious little monster’s psyche by requiring him to do something he doesn’t like.
 
An old Master of Ceremonies I know put it like this:

“When the girls get involved, the boys leave”.
 
otjm said:
And as I said, they do so because their parents don’t parent.
Click to expand...
Hardly. The truth of the matter is more like what Layman said:
Layman said:
An old Master of Ceremonies I know put it like this:

“When the girls get involved, the boys leave”.
Click to expand...
As I see it, it’s the blurring of roles. Boys generally do not engage in the same activities as girls, which is quite normal. Girls, on the other hand, often want to do everything that the boys do, and that is also normal. But some things were considered “off limits” and serving Mass was one of them. Being an altar server has traditionally been a “boy thing” and that’s rather clear from the term “altar boy” with which we are all familiar.

The role of the altar boy derives from that of minor clerics, and those “minor orders” (sadly of yore in the Latin Church) were restricted to males. Taken all together, the tradition of altar boys has a very sound foundation. IMHO, it is a “boy thing” and rightfully so.
 
malphono said:
Hardly. The truth of the matter is more like what Layman said:
Click to expand...
You must have misread one or two posts. I never said that this is not occuring. I said why it is occuring - slight difference. It occurs because, ultimately, parents don’t parent. the boy doens’t want to serve because a girl is serving? To begin with, the issue of a boy not serving is an age factor; at certain points, the boy doesn’t care (as in, not even aware); at the next age, the boy cares and doesn’t want to be associated with girls; and the next stage is that it again becomes a non-issue.

The reality is that at certain points, boys won’t serve with girls. The point I am making is that as an a dult, had I had a male child insted of female children, my boy would have served. He didn’t like it? Get over it.

I never denied the reality of boys not wanting to serve; I simply addressed causation.
malphono said:
As I see it, it’s the blurring of roles. Boys generally do not engage in the same activities as girls, which is quite normal. Girls, on the other hand, often want to do everything that the boys do, and that is also normal. But some things were considered “off limits” and serving Mass was one of them. Being an altar server has traditionally been a “boy thing” and that’s rather clear from the term “altar boy” with which we are all familiar.

The role of the altar boy derives from that of minor clerics, and those “minor orders” (sadly of yore in the Latin Church) were restricted to males. Taken all together, the tradition of altar boys has a very sound foundation. IMHO, it is a “boy thing” and rightfully so.
Click to expand...
I have no particular bone to pick with you. I had twin daughters and they both served. I did not push them to that; they wanted to do that (and to let you in on a little secret - it had nothing to do with becomeing a priest. They understood what service was and saw no connection between holdig a book and being a priest).

Had they not had the opportunity, then they would not have served, and “no” was part of my vocabulary.

I am not carrying a torch either way. If the Church says tomorrow that girls will not serve, then “fiat”. If the Church continues to let them serve, then I am not coing to carry a torch to the contrary. If one has daughters and chooses to not let them serve, that is fine; that individual is the parent and has the duty to raise them as seen fit. If one has boys, and they to stop serving because a girl is doing so, then I suggest that the parent has a duty to indicate to the boy that is not a deciding issue.
 
If something is a practice allowed by the Church, then even if you don’t like it, it’s not a liturgical abuse.

If it’s a clear violation of the rubrics, then it IS a liturgical abuse.

I think that Cluny’s original posting is that many people call things they don’t like, or even permitted variants that they have not seen, “liturgical abuses”.
 
I wonder how that would work? A boy doesn’t want to be an altar boy because there’re girls up there. His mother insists he does it.

I doubt his tenure in the sanctuary would last very long, regardless of what she wanted. Mutiny would ensue, overtly or covertly. Children are supposed to honour their parents, but parents are not supposed to vex their children, either.

Re: liturgical abuses. It seems to me that if you do it long enough, get away with it, and can get an indult, it’s no longer an abuse. How it plays in Heaven is not taken into account, not the affect it has, long term, on the faithful and the clergy.

CITH, EMHCs, lay lectors, the priest performing ad-orientem would have been shocking fifty years ago. Now, they’re normal, in the sociological sense of that word. No mandate from Heaven, no approved or disapproved revelation called for them. As I understand it, they were not requested by Paul VI either. They’re the work of disobedient bishops and priests. More and more, Man seems to be glorifying himself in the Latin Rite.

Here’s a question: If the N.O Mass was forbidden tomorrow, and only the TLM was allowed, what would the Church lose?
 
Layman said:
Here’s a question: If the N.O Mass was forbidden tomorrow, and only the TLM was allowed, what would the Church lose?
Click to expand...
Oh boy, but that’s a loaded question :eek:

Well, for one thing (and I just can’t resist injecting a little levity here) there is a lot of really bad music that would be lost 😛
 
If only the TLM were allowed, a whole lot of Eastern Catholics would be VERY po’ed, including me.

To say nothing of devotees of the Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, and Anglican Uses in the Western Church.

Obviously, once more we see a question assuming that the whole Church is Roman Rite.
 
Bataar said:
I don’t believe it was a misunderstanding, but rather, an agenda to take God out of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Then you need to re-read what the actual documents say. Even if one presumes that Bugninni had as much influence as he is alleged to have, there is nothing in the OF that would support such an idea.
 
bpbasilphx said:
If only the TLM were allowed, a whole lot of Eastern Catholics would be VERY po’ed, including me.

To say nothing of devotees of the Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, and Anglican Uses in the Western Church.

Obviously, once more we see a question assuming that the whole Church is Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
And of course that’s not to mention that if there was only the EF Mass, then all us “irreverent” dolts that are complained about who are currently attending the OF Mass would have to shift over. Boy, there goes the neighborhood! :rolleyes:
 
Layman said:
I wonder how that would work? A boy doesn’t want to be an altar boy because there’re girls up there. His mother insists he does it.

I doubt his tenure in the sanctuary would last very long, regardless of what she wanted. Mutiny would ensue, overtly or covertly. Children are supposed to honour their parents, but parents are not supposed to vex their children, either.
Click to expand...
If a child has been raised properly from the beginning, then there would be little or no mutiny; and if the parent had been parenting from the beginning, mutiny would be early recognized and addressed. Most 6th grade to 8th grade boys are far less resistent to effective parenting than you posit.
Layman said:
Re: liturgical abuses. It seems to me that if you do it long enough, get away with it, and can get an indult, it’s no longer an abuse. How it plays in Heaven is not taken into account, not the affect it has, long term, on the faithful and the clergy.
Click to expand...
The issue of the legitimacy of rules from Rome, and their efficaciousness has been discussed on other threads and I won’t try to repeat what others have said there. The bottom line is that e.g. Communion in the hand starting in Holland without permission (and I am not sure of the accfuracy of that statement, but let’s go with it), and subsequently permission being given gets dragged out all the3 time, as if that somehow makes the change in the rule illegitimate. It doesn’t; rules from Rome do not rely on their history for their legitimacy anywhere in the legal, canonical or theological realm, but only in the minds of those who don’t like them.
Layman said:
CITH, EMHCs, lay lectors, the priest performing ad-orientem would have been shocking fifty years ago. Now, they’re normal, in the sociological sense of that word. No mandate from Heaven, no approved or disapproved revelation called for them. As I understand it, they were not requested by Paul VI either. They’re the work of disobedient bishops and priests. More and more, Man seems to be glorifying himself in the Latin Rite.

Here’s a question: If the N.O Mass was forbidden tomorrow, and only the TLM was allowed, what would the Church lose?
Click to expand...
Revelations generally don’t cover that matter; did you ahve one in mind that was approved, which had liturgical laws and practices as a subject?

As to what the Church would lose, who knows? But since the OF is legitimate, and since the Church and this Pope in particular are sensitive to the fact that the introduction of the OF was far too abrupt, the likelyhood of such thing happening is completely non-existent. The question has as much validity as asking what would happen if the LDS church should suddenly reject completely all of the so-called revelations of Joseph Smith, and become Christian. Any answer is both pure speculation and a waste of time. Further, it ignores the impact of and the appreciation of the vernacular by so many.
 
ncjohn said:
And of course that’s not to mention that if there was only the EF Mass, then all us “irreverent” dolts that are complained about who are currently attending the OF Mass would have to shift over. Boy, there goes the neighborhood! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I suspect a great many people who simply dislike not being able to understand latin would find their way to other places… places like:
Schismatic Catholic Churches (Vagantes, So called “Independent Catholics”)
Old Catholics - Utrecht. (The Vatican 1 rejectors)
Liturgical Protestants (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist)
Orthodoxy (Antiochian or Russian “Western Rite Orthodox”)
Eastern Catholic Churches
 
To Basil: My question was based on the Latin Rite, OF vs EF. I think you have a chip on your shoulder about how Eastern Catholics are treated by Rome. As a pew warmer, I can say I don’t know much about Eastern Catholicism. I doubt many Latin Rite Catholics do. Given the current state of cathecesis in the Latin Church, one could say that we don’t know much about Catholicism full stop.

If Eastern bishops have resisted experimenting with their rites, I would say their flocks are lucky.

There’s nothing set in stone about the OF. It, in itself, is proof of that. It is a confection. It is a break with the past, and is constantly being modified. It could be dropped tomorrow and the Church would suffer barely a ripple, in terms of saving souls for Heaven.

Imagine, then, going to a Roman Catholic Latin Mass in any part of the world. You’ve brought your pocket Missal. Enter church, genuflect, enter pew, take it out and you’re ready to go. Got a priest shortage? Import some. Confessions could be a problem, but not a Low Mass. A retired priest could have a nice ‘gig’ saying Mass somewhere warm.

It’s win-win. The Latin Mass would unite the Roman Catholic Church. The O.F. has divided it.

I don’t see the problem about the vernacular. If you can read a missal, you can follow the Mass. The text is beautiful, reverent and uplifting. I can’t say the same about the O.F.

Re: Altar boys / girls. Have a look at a few N.O. masses in different parishes. What is the ratio of male to female lectors, altar servers and EMHCs? Did men suddenly become less pious, or women more so, or is there something about it O.F. that puts men off?

Perhaps they just don’t listen to their mothers 😉
 
To Basil: My question was based on the Latin Rite, OF vs EF. I think you have a chip on your shoulder about how Eastern Catholics are treated by Rome.

My problem is how Eastern Catholics are treated on this list, not by Rome.
There’s nothing set in stone about the OF. It, in itself, is proof of that. It is a confection. It is a break with the past, and is constantly being modified.

And you think the EF is set in stone? It’s a confection and was constantly modified, too.
Imagine, then, going to a Roman Catholic Latin Mass in any part of the world. You’ve brought your pocket Missal. Enter church, genuflect, enter pew, take it out and you’re ready to go.

**That’s a pretty myth believed by many devotees of the EF.

Note that I have no problem with the EF: just attitudes by some people towards it.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top