Liturgical Abuses depressing me

[Joysong]

AZ 4 Faith:

Liturgical dancing went away with the appointment of our new Bishop three years ago. Thanks be to God.

I’m very glad you clarified this, AZ 4, because your first post almost looked as though it is happening now. Many of us, like you, have seen these things in the past, so it is important to mention the time frame.

Of course the Mass isn’t invalid without the Creed or the Gloria on Sunday. But as a daily Mass attendee, where the Gloria and Creed are omitted, I look forward to the opportunity to recite or sing the Gloria and the Creed with my brothers and sisters in faith on Sundays and other Solemnities.

I also attend several masses during the week, and the omission of either prayer does not affect my worship for that particular mass. I suppose you might say that the spiritual food which is served to me is acceptable because it is the Lord’s. Our priests are often given the choice to use other Masses and readings for weekdays. Should that offend any of us who hoped for the mass honoring the saint whose feast fell that day, rather than the mass for ordinary time? Or use EP-I rather than EP-II or EP-III?
Sunday is a different matter, I agree.

I’m not sure I would write the Bishop if the priest forgot to pray the Creed. When I lectored Sunday, our pastor was involved in a ceremony connected with RCIA, and he forgot the Prayers of the Faithful, which I was to read. He did not see me standing ready to offer them. Maybe this is a different matter when the priest announces to the congregation that they will not recite the Creed every Sunday, and I would have to pray about whether or not to initiate a report without first speaking with him.

So when a priest takes it upon himself to skip, alter, rush, eliminate, add to, substitute his own interpretation, etc. in areas of the liturgy where Holy Mother Church has told him he’s not allowed to, he’s messin’ with more than just the Mass he’s offering at the moment - he’s effecting the Whole Church - past and present - Militant, Triumphant and Suffering.

I’m not sure I agree with the last paragraph, for I have not read anything along those lines. I would not think the entire Church, especially the Triumphant, can be affected by this, since they are in glory. Nor can I envision in what manner it would affect anyone else.

 

[az_4_faith]

If you don’t agree with me, that’s okay.

I really can’t figure out where you’re going with this.

 

[StevenFrancis]

All these abuses I see and hear about really getting to me. Is there any hope? Even some bishops are commiting abuses. Why isn’t the Holy Father doing anything? Is there no hope?

I say to myself: “Jesus would be rolling over in His grave if He had one”. (Just a little humor to keep me sane.)

Seriously, is there no more respect for the sacraments among most Catholics?

Priests who commit abuses: Are they evil or just stupid?

Hi:

I’m still a shiny new Catholic, and I’m just now finding out that some of the things done in my Parish are not Liturgically correct. After all, our liturgy is the only one I’ve known. Most of the things we do are correct, but there is one glaring abuse, and that is that we don’t kneel when we’re supposed to. I guess it’s okay with our Bishop, because he’s presided at a couple of our Masses. Our Priest says it is because our Parish doesn’t have the proper insurance, and we don’t have kneelers, (it’s just a concrete floor). They ask we don’t do it as a choice individually because of the unity of the body of Christ.

All that is fine and good I guess for the portion beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer. Everybody DOES do a profound bow when the Priest genuflects. The GIRM says: (“In the dioceses of the United States of America, [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.)

But also, we don’t kneel during the Agnus Dei!! The GIRM says: (The new American adaptations now expressly provide for kneeling after the Agnus Dei, though the local bishop may choose to suspend this practice.).

Since the Bishop has been at our masses, and seen that we don’t kneel there, I have to assume that he has chosen to suspen this practice. I guess I’m frustrated. I want to celebrate the liturgy in accordance with Rome. I don’t even care about the tradition vs. Vatican II etc., since Vatican II is all I’ve ever had. I just want to at least do things right per NOW. If the Diocesean Bishop doesn’t change it, (i.e. make our parish get the proper insurance, or whatever, or kneelers, or tell the faithful to bring cushions etc.), then do I go to the Holy Father? What is the chain of command?

No…I don’t want to change Parishes, if at all possible. I LOVE our Parish in every way. It’s awesome. I just want this one thing to be fixed, (IF it has to be), and the Priest and the Bishop already know about it, and are okay with it, I guess. I would need the next step up, but without upsetting our wonderful Bishop or Parish Priest. They are top drawer.

Peace,

Steven

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hi:

I’m still a shiny new Catholic, and I’m just now finding out that some of the things done in my Parish are not Liturgically correct. After all, our liturgy is the only one I’ve known. Most of the things we do are correct, but there is one glaring abuse, and that is that we don’t kneel when we’re supposed to. I guess it’s okay with our Bishop, because he’s presided at a couple of our Masses. Our Priest says it is because our Parish doesn’t have the proper insurance, and we don’t have kneelers, (it’s just a concrete floor). They ask we don’t do it as a choice individually because of the unity of the body of Christ.

All that is fine and good I guess for the portion beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer. Everybody DOES do a profound bow when the Priest genuflects. The GIRM says: (“In the dioceses of the United States of America, [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.)

But also, we don’t kneel during the Agnus Dei!! The GIRM says: (The new American adaptations now expressly provide for kneeling after the Agnus Dei, though the local bishop may choose to suspend this practice.).

Since the Bishop has been at our masses, and seen that we don’t kneel there, I have to assume that he has chosen to suspen this practice. I guess I’m frustrated. I want to celebrate the liturgy in accordance with Rome. I don’t even care about the tradition vs. Vatican II etc., since Vatican II is all I’ve ever had. I just want to at least do things right per NOW. If the Diocesean Bishop doesn’t change it, (i.e. make our parish get the proper insurance, or whatever, or kneelers, or tell the faithful to bring cushions etc.), then do I go to the Holy Father? What is the chain of command?

No…I don’t want to change Parishes, if at all possible. I LOVE our Parish in every way. It’s awesome. I just want this one thing to be fixed, (IF it has to be), and the Priest and the Bishop already know about it, and are okay with it, I guess. I would need the next step up, but without upsetting our wonderful Bishop or Parish Priest. They are top drawer.

Peace,

Steven

Relax, your parish is most likely following the norm specified by your Bishop, which is in accordance with Rome. The GIRM specifies that the Bishop is the authority in this.

Don’t take what you read in this forum too literally, or you’ll end up going to Mass each week angry and with an agenda, only to end up eventually disrespecting your bishop and pastor. Follow their directives, they’re not as horrible and ignorant as what this forums can lead you to believe.

Jim

 

[kangnamdragon]

Since the Bishop has been at our masses, and seen that we don’t kneel there, I have to assume that he has chosen to suspen this practice.

Don’t always assume that the bishop consents to what he sees. Sometimes he does not say something because it takes time to change things or he does not want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

I can understand how it would be hard without kneelers, but I wonder why there are no kneelers and using insurance as an excuse is a new one for me.

However, I don’t believe the priest can prevent you from kneeling at any time during the Mass.

 

[otjm]

I must take issue with this statement. Catholics have a right to a proper celebration of the Mass.

I don’t disagree. It is a matter of perspective. I have the strange feeling that too many people who complain at length about what Father did or didn’t do are spending an inordinate amount of time on something that isn’t going to change in the next year or two, but will eventually resolve itself; or on items that Rome simply chooses not to resolve. They could spend the same amount of time working against something that is truly serious.

An example: holding hands during the Our Father. It has been around some 42 or 43 years or more; Rome has had numerous chances to resolve it and they don’t (the most recent being a document specifically directed to abuses in the Mass).

The majority of Catholics only attend Mass once a week. The majority of Catholics only give thought to being Catholic once a week. This is their only exposure to what it means to be a part of our Church. Most will never crack open a Cathechism, or read a Bishop’s statement (or even know who their Bishop is), or hear of an encyclical. It is all the more important for this very reason that the one Mass they attend be celebrated without the personal innovations of the priest.

And I would suggest that the personal innovations by the priest are unnecessary, unwise, not authorized, and rediculous, but are also in general minor blips on the radar and not near as important as the liturgy police would make them out to be. I am not suggesting in any way that I condone them. But I pick my battles.

And I would suggest there may be a correlation between the number of abortions, the sexual license and the poverty problem and the fact that it’s highly unlikely any Catholic who attends Mass once a week will even hear these things mentioned in a homily.

Yes, there is a correclation, in that they occured during the same period of time. I would suggest that the spiraling rush to secularism, coupled with the sexual revolution that sprang into full bloom in the 60’s had more to do with it than what someone heard or didn’t hear in the homily. Further, I would submit that the explosion right after Humanae Vitae had more to do with it; and we heard about HV from the pulpit; statistics show it did no good at all.

Also, simply because abortion, promiscuity, and poverty still exist does not diminish or negate the problem that absolutely exists in our Catholic Churches.

Nor do I suggest that they negate or diminish anything in the Church. I only suggest that to someone who is mightily upset, that they change their perspective. Most of what is complained of is 1) wrong, and 2) more of a nuisance than an extremely major issue. I worry more about what the gay culture is currently doing through legislatures to get at and warp our children, than I do if some priest takes one of the Lenten gospel readings and splits it into three parts and has parishoners read two of the parts (and I am not referring to the Passion readings, where that is allowed).

It is all a matter of perspective.

 

[kangnamdragon]

I believe the underlying cause for liturgical abuse is a lack of reverence for the Church, the Magesterium, and the Eucharist. That is the problem. All these “little things” are symptoms of the big problem.

 

[Kevin42]

I agree that we have rules, and ways things need to be done, but I worry when people take it to this extent. Yes, I find it displeasing when I find a liturgical abuse. However, if we truly have peace in Christ, the actions of others should not cause us so much turbulence in our own spiritual life that we cannot concentrate on why we are at mass. Not to judge how well the priest is following the rubrics, but to offer a perfect sacrifice to the Lord our God, to receive Jesus’ body and blood, and to offer ourselves to God and each other. I also worry that some people don’t love being Catholic for the sake of Jesus, but they love being Catholic because of the rules. Let us worry about the pole in our own eyes, before we go jumping to conclusions that priests who use glass chalices are deliberately going against the Church. Yes they may be, or they may not be, but I worry when it causes people so much turbulence in their own spiritual life

 

[blessedtoo]

As I said way back in post #19:

I finally realized that I am not in charge: If Christ is really upset with the state of our Church, HE will do something about it. How could I be more upset than God?

I have achieved a certain level of acceptance about the state of our diocese. But I feel that some are not fully understanding the extent to which we fell just a few short decades ago, and how long it has taken to climb back out just a teeny bit. So please understand that I am not just talking about hand-holding here. I am talking about every abuse (except the words of Consecration) you can name and usually 5 or 6 of them in the Mass in most Parishes every single Sunday. Okay? I’m talking about a Mass that is unrecognizable from the liturgy itself to the Church building. I am talking about dissent so obvious that it drew an Apostolic Visit in the 80’s. You all know how slow the Church moves and it has taken this long for even minor changes to occur. So if you are all blessed and fortunate enough to only experience these things on occasion, then God bless you. But for those of us still struggling to understand what happened to our Churches, perhaps you could extend some empathy.

BTW: All the letters our Archbishop has received have finally borne fruit and a new Policies and Guidelines Document is about to be released. According to our local Catholic Radio Station, some of the more egregious abuses have been addressed.

 

[BigE]

I have visited many parishes in different states while traveling and I would say that I have seen abuses in more than 50% of them.

Funny…that strikes me as what the Jews of Jesus time were more concerned about…the “rules” as opposed to where a person’s heart was.

Of course, there is always a delicate balance to be struck - as people shouldn’t just go out and do anything. The trick is to find that balance and focus on the real purpose of the Mass.

 

[BobP123]

However, I did write letters to the Bishop, went to Confession, spoke with my priest and spiritual director and searched until I finally found a Church with a solid Liturgy. You must persevere and remember that we do what we can, and the rest is up to God. If and when He has had enough, He will fix it.

One of the things I was always taught by the nuns in my early years was that in order to receive Communion, one need to be properly disposed. What does this mean? Yes, it means you need to be free from unconfessed mortal sins. Also you need to have fasted according to the rules. But you also needed to be in a grace-acceptable state, free from any stress and tension.

Think about it. How can you obtain maximum graces from the Mass if you are angry with the guy next to you or the priest or whoever is distributing communion for any reason?

What you did is commendable. There is no reason anymore for Catholics not to travel greater than normal distances to attend Mass for spiritual advantage.

 

[Holland]

I’ll respond to your question. Here in my city, there are quite a few of us who have taken the issue of liturgical irregularities to the Archbishop. Some of us have done it so frequently, that we are on a first name basis with our Shephard! For myself, I have left Churches both in tears, and enraged. It has taken years of persistence on the part of some faithful Catholics to make any impact at all. Perhaps you haven’t experienced first hand what it is like to live in a diocese littered with abuses. Perhaps you haven’t had to hunt for one Church out of hundreds that celebrates the Mass in accordance with the rubrics. I assure you that I am not a member of the liturgy police and I enter every Church expecting to experience a Catholic Mass. When what I see bears no resemblence to what I should, by rights, expect to witness, you bet there will be anger, outrage, and even sadness.

I too, live in a diocese just like this. Long term, it is spirtually debillitating. I have learned to arm myself spiritually before I enter the church every Sunday so I can participate fully in the Mass. After all the dust settles, after doing all the things you mentioned above to address these issues, all you can do is trust that God’s love will lead these people back to where they should be.

 

[kleary]

All these abuses I see and hear about really getting to me. Is there any hope? Even some bishops are commiting abuses. Why isn’t the Holy Father doing anything? Is there no hope?

I say to myself: “Jesus would be rolling over in His grave if He had one”. (Just a little humor to keep me sane.)

Seriously, is there no more respect for the sacraments among most Catholics?

Priests who commit abuses: Are they evil or just stupid?

There is hope. You can leave the local parish and attend Holy Mass where there are no liturgical abuses- because no abuses are possible under the 1962 Missal.

I stopped getting depressed and upset every Sunday with all I saw and heard. And the parishes I have been in would seem pretty “traditional” to most people- (they did not have a movie screen on top of the tabernacle with a bouncing ball over the congregation’s responses or any of the Mahoneyism’s charades). I would come away from Mass angry, sad and upset- every time I saw someone receive in the hand- every time I saw a female in the sanctuary- especially an altar girl.

Now I only get upset inside over it all when I have to attend a Novus ordo parish out of necessity- but I offer it up for the poor souls in purgatory- (and these things I see are allowed today- I could imagine if I witnessed even more horrid things I hear about in this forum- I probably would vomit in church in front of everyone.)

On a side note- I had to attend the local N.O. parish this past Sunday and the priest said in his homily, “Jesus merely resusitated Lazarus in his body” (implying that Lazarus never died and Jesus did not raise him from the dead.) This is MODERNIST HERESY condemned by Pope Pius X. The modernist heresy denies the miracles of Jesus!

Ken

 

[JimR-OCDS]

kleary

On a side note- I had to attend the local N.O. parish this past Sunday and the priest said in his homily, “Jesus merely resusitated Lazarus in his body” (implying that Lazarus never died and Jesus did not raise him from the dead.) This is MODERNIST HERESY condemned by Pope Pius X. The modernist heresy denies the miracles of Jesus!

From the merely short statement here, I can understand that the priest was saying that Lazarus’s resurrected body was just that, not a glorified resurrected body as Jesus when he rose from the dead.

Resuscitated bodies still have to eat and will die again, as Lazarus. They can not go through walls like Jesus.

Misunderstanding what the priest said doesn’t mean he’s a heretic.

Jim

 

[kleary]

kleary

From the merely short statement here, I can understand that the priest was saying that Lazarus’s resurrected body was just that, not a glorified resurrected body as Jesus when he rose from the dead.

Resuscitated bodies still have to eat and will die again, as Lazarus. They can not go through walls like Jesus.

Misunderstanding what the priest said doesn’t mean he’s a heretic.

Jim

Not saying he is a heretic. We called the priest the next day and he explained himself to us. The term “resusitated” used by the priest was meant to mean exactly as you put it. However we made it known that in this day and age, with the Modernist heresy so prevalent in our Church that denies the miracles of Jesus his choice of words in this case can send a different message than what he really meant to say.

Ken

 

[MTD]

Most of the things we do are correct, but there is one glaring abuse, and that is that we don’t kneel when we’re supposed to.

Kneeling from after the Sanctus to the Great Amen is required; no bishop can change that. Kneeling after the Agnus Dei is determined by the bishop; you’d have to check with your diocese to see what your bishop determined on that. However, he cannot change the kneeling at the Consecration–that is required everywhere.

Yes, I find it displeasing when I find a liturgical abuse. However, if we truly have peace in Christ, the actions of others should not cause us so much turbulence in our own spiritual life that we cannot concentrate on why we are at mass.

Well, you know, there is such a thing as holy anger. Anger of itself is a good thing–God made us to react with anger when there is injustice so that we might be prompted to end it.

Jesus Himself got quite angry when he found the sellers and money-changers in the temple abusing the Lord’s house. I cannot help but think that our anger with the abuses to the house and worship of God are actually an example of justified, holy anger.

Of course, that justified anger should prompt us to act to end such problems; it would not be good to brood over it while doing nothing. As St. Paul said: “Be angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger. Give not place to the devil.” (Eph. 4:26-27)

Maria

 

[fin]

sorry, I cannot believe that when a priest has a clown read the gospel he is overlooking things. lets women in halter tops distribute communion, that is not overlooking things…that is true disobedience to the Church.

halter tops? i agree that’s just too much.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not saying he is a heretic. We called the priest the next day and he explained himself to us. The term “resusitated” used by the priest was meant to mean exactly as you put it. However we made it known that in this day and age, with the Modernist heresy so prevalent in our Church that denies the miracles of Jesus his choice of words in this case can send a different message than what he really meant to say.

Ken

But you never told us when you posted this tidbit, that you had called the priest and he explained himself.

You merely posted it as an abuse and left it at that.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

Kleary:

I would come away from Mass angry, sad and upset- every time I saw someone receive in the hand- every time I saw a female in the sanctuary- especially an altar girl.

(and these things I see are allowed today- I could imagine if I witnessed even more horrid things I hear about in this forum- I probably would vomit in church in front of everyone.)

Jim,

Kleary also added that he would vomit if he witnessed horrid things, and in the same post listed two things that are valid as though they were “horrid.” Maybe in his eyes? This is what disturbs me about these types of threads … that LICIT allowances which are NOT abuses, are vehemently disliked and put in the category of being nauseus.

I wonder if the same people would vomit at the crucifixion just because the soldiers were abusive. The mass is Calvary, and therefore I have problems with the deploring irreverance displayed toward this liturgy by those who despise the N.O. Somehow, I don’t think Our Blessed Mother was focused anywhere but on her Son.

Perhaps the TLM pastors dropped out of heaven and are angels incarnate?

 

[kmknapp]

I very much agree with those who have said that the internet can’t be trusted about “abuses”.

Two of the more internet-notorious “awful abuses” have to do with Masses celebrated by my archbishop, and neither was an abuse at all — but the pictures still wander the web.

At the Mass of Thanksgiving for his installation, during the homily he showed us some of the welcome gifts he’d been given, including a foam cheesehead from the Milwaukee Common Council. Therefore, a “Cheesehead Mass”?

And, before a field Mass during the 100-Years Harley-Davidson Festival, some of the congregation reclined on their motorcycles while waiting for Mass to begin, and some had priests bless their bikes afterwards — sure proof of irreverence?

deep breathe…

karen marie