Liturgical Abuses et al

[rome1453]

Good morning.

I attended mass last night (7pm) and I noticed some odd things that I wanted to see with you all if these things were kosher or not:

1. During the homily the priest (not wearing chasuble) said that during the story of Jesus walking on the water, that Peter did not really walk on the water…it was a type of speech that meddle eastern people understood like a metaphor.
2. In the same homily he said that peace in the world can only come about by social justice. I was expecting only from Christ, but alas…no.
3. During the sign of peace, he walked up and down the aisle to shake peoples hands.
4. During communion he handed the EMHC the bowl of bread and chalices and then sat down and rested while the EMHCs did the priest’s work.

Thank you.

John Patterson

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Good morning.

I attended mass last night (7pm) and I noticed some odd things that I wanted to see with you all if these things were kosher or not:

1. During the homily the priest (not wearing chasuble) said that during the story of Jesus walking on the water, that Peter did not really walk on the water…it was a type of speech that meddle eastern people understood like a metaphor.
2. In the same homily he said that peace in the world can only come about by social justice. I was expecting only from Christ, but alas…no.
3. During the sign of peace, he walked up and down the aisle to shake peoples hands.
4. During communion he handed the EMHC the bowl of bread and chalices and then sat down and rested while the EMHCs did the priest’s work.

Thank you.

John Patterson

1. I think that’s more than an abuse. I think it’s heresy.
2. Yeah, that is at the very least a distortion. Sounds a bit like liberation theology.
3. Abuse.
4. Abuse.

Notify your bishop.

 

[paperwight66]

Regarding calling point 4 an abuse. Hang on, there, just a moment - perhaps the priest was in pain and unable to stand any longer, from arthritis or sciatica or any one of a number of conditions.

It is unjust to jump to the worst conclusion of ‘abuse’.

 

[starsmurf]

I have seen other priests go up and down the aisle offering others the sign of peace. as I also live in Scotland and used to live in the same diocese, I don’t think it is an abuse. I saw a very traditional priest offering Mass in a very traditional Carmelite monastery do this, I hardly think he would do this if it were abuse.

The peace can only come about through social justice, may well have been a way of telling you that you can’t just sit on your hands and expect Jesus to do this for you, you need to do your part. Wasn’t it Bl Teresa of Culcutta who said that Christ has no hands on Earth but yours?

I agree that the priest may have been unable to stand for any number of medical reasons.

 

[rome1453]

The priest is well enough to stand. His appearance reminded me like Jesus.

 

[Ocarm]

Wasn’t it Bl Teresa of Culcutta who said that Christ has no hands on Earth but yours?

She was quoting St Teresa of Avila, but then Mother always was good at teaching us about the major saints - she also quoted St Ignatius, St Francis and St Therese (amongst others) very frequently.

 

[Fink]

Regarding calling point 4 an abuse. Hang on, there, just a moment - perhaps the priest was in pain and unable to stand any longer, from arthritis or sciatica or any one of a number of conditions.

It is unjust to jump to the worst conclusion of ‘abuse’.

He was fit enough to walk up and down the aisle.
Coupled with what else happened, i reckon rome1453 has good reason to suspect the worst.

Not wearing a chasuble, either! So, that`s another abuse; or was it still drying, after being put through the washing machine whose spin dry function had just failed?

 

[pnewton]

I think number three is the only one that is not permitted. As said earlier, number four is allowable for health reason. The fact that he was mobile enough to commit three though makes me wonder.

His homily is odd. A figure of speech? And then sinking in the water? The lengths some people go to in order to deny the miraculous astounds me.

 

[PiousTemplar]

I don’t think #1 is heresy. Our Monsignor said a similar homily.

 

[ANNE_2]

Report all abuses to the Diocese Bishop immediately.
Be certain to document date, time, and location.

For documentation, as appropriate, you can use:
GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) which can be found on the USCCB web site;
“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” for Church Doctrine regarding Faith and Morals;
Canon Law on the Vatican web site.

If the Bishop does not correct the Priest, here is some additional contact information which should be used.
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=0f724786-05df-4511-a0da-3ba138ccfeec

Everything you mentioned is a liturgical abuse.

 

[Sherry_G]

I would ask for an appt. with this priest and discuss these points with him first. If you are strong in your own faith as you sound, you could ask him to expound on this teaching of his concerning Jesus’ miracles. Just to be sure he is in heresy and not having been misunderstood or his having mis-spoken. As for the moving around shaking hands he definitely should not be doing this as he has consecrated the host by now and should not be touching people. Howev er, this will correct itself soon enough with the changes upcoming in the Mass. Ask him about the missing vestment as he could have an excuse that would be plausible although I can’t come up with one myself. I guess I am saying, our priests are so precious and vital that we need to handle them with extreme care, pray for them always and give them the benefit of the doubt as far as possible.
Once, having met with him, you may discover some things that will be helpful in any case. Once when my priest did not distribute communion, the reason was a medical one as he had an eye infection which could be mildly contagious . If this approach leaves you with confimration of any abuse and the priest insists upon continuing in his line of preaching that is heretical, or abuses during Mass, I would not hesitate to contact the Bishop.

 

[Phemie]

I think number three is the only one that is not permitted.

And that’s only if Scotland has already adopted the new GIRM since there is no such rule under the 1975 GIRM that some countries, such as Canada, are still following.

 

[Aramis]

And that’s only if Scotland has already adopted the new GIRM since there is no such rule under the 1975 GIRM that some countries, such as Canada, are still following.

Note that a recent MP, Liturgicam Authenticum, makes reporting abuses to the bishop a duty of the faithful.

1 might not rise to heresy, but certainly is inappropriate.

2 isn’t even that far out; a need for social justice is part of the current teachings of the church. It doesn’t relate to the readings, however, violating the rubrics for a homily.

3 may be approved of by the bishop, but is a minor abuse if not explicitly allowed by the bishop. (And the bishop isn’t supposed to allow it.)

4 is an explicit abuse.

Lack of Chasuble is permitted only if not the celebrant. This sounds unlikely, and is a notable abuse.

 

[thistle]

Report all abuses to the Diocese Bishop immediately.
Be certain to document date, time, and location.

For documentation, as appropriate, you can use:
GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) which can be found on the USCCB web site;
“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” for Church Doctrine regarding Faith and Morals;
Canon Law on the Vatican web site.

If the Bishop does not correct the Priest, here is some additional contact information which should be used.
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=0f724786-05df-4511-a0da-3ba138ccfeec

Everything you mentioned is a liturgical abuse.

I do not agree.
The first thing to do is to discuss any concerns with the actual priest in a polite and non-confrontational way to find out why he said/did what said/did. If after discussing with the priest you are not satisfied then go to the bishop but going behind the back of the priest without giving him the chance to explain is petty and uncharitable!!

 

[Phemie]

Note that a recent MP, Liturgicam Authenticum, makes reporting abuses to the bishop a duty of the faithful.

1 might not rise to heresy, but certainly is inappropriate.

2 isn’t even that far out; a need for social justice is part of the current teachings of the church. It doesn’t relate to the readings, however, violating the rubrics for a homily.

3 may be approved of by the bishop, but is a minor abuse if not explicitly allowed by the bishop. (And the bishop isn’t supposed to allow it.)

4 is an explicit abuse.

Lack of Chasuble is permitted only if not the celebrant. This sounds unlikely, and is a notable abuse.

Again, #3 has no such rule for the priest under the 1975 GIRM. Is Scotland still functioning with that? It’s probably because of the annoying habit of many priests to go walkabout at this time that brought about the change in the 2002 GIRM.

 

[starsmurf]

The priest is well enough to stand. His appearance reminded me like Jesus.

My mother has a sciatica, which leaves her able to walk but unable to stand still. I also have a circulation disorder that leaves me unable to stand for long periods of time but I can walk and do not appear disabled. I am often given dirty looks for not getting up to offer my seat to an older person when my local bus is full, but to do so would leave me on the floor.

If this priest is on medication for something like blood pressure or taking certain heart drugs, he may be unable to stand this long, as he might faint. Since this would obviously spill the Hosts, he may feel that it is safer if he does not dispense communion. After he has been standing for so long at Mass, he may need the time to sit down. The priest may also have been feeling dizzy or unwell, and thus felt that to stand with the Hosts was inviting disaster.

If you are concerned, contact Cardinal O’Brien. You’ll find him very helpful.

 

[starsmurf]

Again, #3 has no such rule for the priest under the 1975 GIRM. Is Scotland still functioning with that? It’s probably because of the annoying habit of many priests to go walkabout at this time that brought about the change in the 2002 GIRM.

Sorry I’m not sure if Scotland is or isn’t. But as a very traditional community of Carmelites I visit have no problem with their chaplin, who is also very traditional (and the relative of a famous Blessed who is soon to be canonised!), going to shake hands with the congregation during the Sign of Peace. I cannot imagine for one moment that they would allow this if it were an abuse. They reported a priest who did commit an abuse to his superior, so they would never put up with a regular abuse in their daily Mass.

 

[Pax1972]

I have to agree with those who have suggested discussing your concerns with the priest before taking them to your bishop. While your concerns are certainly valid, there’s always the chance you misunderstood him or that he inadvertently misspoke during his homily. As for his actions (or lack thereof) during communion, again, there may be personal/physical issues of which you’re unaware. I believe that giving your priest the opportunity to address your concerns is the charitable thing to do. If he refuses to address the issues outright or fails to allay your concern, perhaps, then you should take them to your bishop.

Peace

 

[benedictgal]

Report all abuses to the Diocese Bishop immediately.
Be certain to document date, time, and location.

For documentation, as appropriate, you can use:
GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) which can be found on the USCCB web site;
“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” for Church Doctrine regarding Faith and Morals;
Canon Law on the Vatican web site.

If the Bishop does not correct the Priest, here is some additional contact information which should be used.
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=0f724786-05df-4511-a0da-3ba138ccfeec

Everything you mentioned is a liturgical abuse.

Now, the Catechism is a teaching document and not a regulatory one. Thus, the main sources for the Liturgy (regulatory) are:

Sacrosanctum Concilium
GIRM
Redemptionis Sacramentum
Code of Canon Law

Regarding the homily, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

[67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church.147 It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ Himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.148

[68.] The diocesan Bishop must diligently oversee the preaching of the homily,149 also publishing norms and distributing guidelines and auxiliary tools to the sacred ministers, and promoting meetings and other projects for this purpose so that they may have the opportunity to consider the nature of the homily more precisely and find help in its preparation.

Concerning vesture, RS states that:

123.] “The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole”.213 Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated.

Regarding the Sign of Peace, the GIRM states that:

The Priest may give the Sign of Peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so that the celebration is not disrupted. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present), the Priest may offer the Sign of Peace to a small number of the faithful near the sanctuary.

In the instance of the last example, Redemptionis Sacromentum states the following:

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258

This needs to be addressed to the Bishop as what you have described is serious.

 

[Aramis]

Again, #3 has no such rule for the priest under the 1975 GIRM. Is Scotland still functioning with that? It’s probably because of the annoying habit of many priests to go walkabout at this time that brought about the change in the 2002 GIRM.

It is, however, barred in Instruction Redemtionis Sacramentum, #72:[72.] It is appropriate “that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner”. “The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful”. “As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people”, and their acts are subject to the recognitio of the Apostolic See.[152]
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

So, literally, it matters not if Scotland has updated their GIRM; the CDWS, on behalf of Rome, bars the practice.

Same document, later: [183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.
Since Canon Law and the instruction specify the manner for the faithful to deal with liturgical abuses is to notify the bishop…