Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[MrS]

Orionthehunter:

I am going to focus on what I bolded above. This is not true. An abuse is a willful decision to disregard legitimate instruction. These “adaptations” were an initiation by local Bishops who interpreted that these adaptations were within their purview.

.

That is bull. There is certainly and was certainly legitimate instruction. Call it rubrics, call it GIRM, call it RS but they are legitimate. And they use the style of language common to the Church in declaring what should occur - posture, involvement of laity etc. They are not meant to include a listing of what is prohibited.

The "adaptation"s you refer to were started by individuals “with a willful decision to disregard” the rubrics, GIRM etc. They were first and formost abuses. You are correct… local bishops made the choices themselves, and also declared that they were “authorized”… thus confusing the laity even more.

My post was rather clear in stating an opinion… that the abuse started first… then bishops caved and accepted them. Again… show me any legitimate declaration that the “abuse” in question was initiated/approved before it began.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I am going to focus on what I bolded above. This is not true. An abuse is a willful decision to disregard legitimate instruction. These “adaptations” were an initiation by local Bishops who interpreted that these adaptations were within their purview.

I would think there are many cases where a practice was begun at a parish, by no one’s authority other than the personal whim of a few folks, a bishop may then have become aware and let it continue using the reasoining you mentioned.

That is no organic develpment and was not intended by VII. In fact, it almost seems legalistic or some type of nominalism where one calls an abuse by another name in some attempt to claim it is no abuse.

 

[Orionthehunter]

MrS:

That is bull. There is certainly and was certainly legitimate instruction. Call it rubrics, call it GIRM, call it RS but they are legitimate. And they use the style of language common to the Church in declaring what should occur - posture, involvement of laity etc. They are not meant to include a listing of what is prohibited.

The "adaptation"s you refer to were started by individuals “with a willful decision to disregard” the rubrics, GIRM etc. They were first and formost abuses. You are correct… local bishops made the choices themselves, and also declared that they were “authorized”… thus confusing the laity even more.

My post was rather clear in stating an opinion… that the abuse started first… then bishops caved and accepted them. Again… show me any legitimate declaration that the “abuse” in question was initiated/approved before it began.

Read the article linked by Buffalo. It makes it clear that Bishop’s have authority within the limits of their competence. Unless you know by direct knowledge that it was there wilful intent to disregard and violate their episcopal office in encouraging an abuse, I think that charity requires that we assume these Bishops believed honestly these “adaptations” were within the “limits of their competance.”

Bishops are not infallible. Can they make an incorrect decision and without ill-intent encourage an abuse? Of course. Should they not only cease and desist but correct with Teaching when instructed to by Rome? Absolutely. Should I advocate and support efforts to speed up the elimination of abuses? Absolutely.

But I will never characterize any Bishop uncharitably even when expressing disagreement. And attributing to a Bishop the motive of willful disregard or disrespect for Papal Authority in violation of his episcopal office is “bearing false witness” as only the most intimate to a particular Bishop’s motives have even the slightest evidence of what was in his heart. For the rest of us, such an assertion is a grave matter.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

In fact, it almost seems legalistic or some type of nominalism where one calls an abuse by another name in some attempt to claim it is no abuse.

I am not trying to call an abuse by another name. I just don’t have the knowledge or competance or ego to think I’m able to distinguish in some of these matters whether it is a legitimate adaptation or abuse. Some people think it abuse for the laity to raise their hands in the Orans position during the Our Father. Others don’t. Personally, I don’t do it but until my Bishop is clear on the matter, I’m not going to judge those who do.

 

[MrS]

MrS:

My post was rather clear in stating an opinion… that the abuse started first… then bishops caved and accepted them. Again… show me any legitimate declaration that the “abuse” in question was initiated/approved before it began.

are you missing my point on purpose?? I am not questioning a bishops authority (assumed or not). I am only saying that their actions occur “after the fact”. In that, they are complicent

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I am not trying to call an abuse by another name. I just don’t have the knowledge or competance or ego to think I’m able to distinguish in some of these matters whether it is a legitimate adaptation or abuse. Some people think it abuse for the laity to raise their hands in the Orans position during the Our Father. Others don’t. Personally, I don’t do it but until my Bishop is clear on the matter, I’m not going to judge those who do.

So, anything goes? You have no ability to reason? One can’t hold an opinion?

I am not asking you to judge anyone, only accept the fact many have suffered under the logic that innovation is good.

Why do you think the current Pope has written so much about the reform of the reform?

 

[YinYangMom]

Orionthehunter:

Some of these issues have yet to be resolved (posture, hand holding, orans position). However, Pope Benedict recognizes that some of these adaptations **may be **becoming a distraction and there needs to be greater uniformity. As laity, we should patiently await the resolution of these issues and trust that the Church will find the mind of Christ. To not have that trust is not what is expected of all Catholics.

Agreed. Where’s the trust in the Pope, people?
Patience is a virtue I think we all need to work a little harder on with regard to these ‘differences’ in our parishes. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Agreed. Where’s the trust in the Pope, people?
Patience is a virtue I think we all need to work a little harder on with regard to these ‘differences’ in our parishes. But that’s just my opinion.

Right now a parish is deciding if women should preach at mass and the bishop has said it is licit. Should the laity look the other way and claim the bishop says it is ok so it must be ok?

People want very much to obey Rome. That is not the issue usually.

 

[Orionthehunter]

MrS:

are you missing my point on purpose?? I am not questioning a bishops authority (assumed or not). I am only saying that their actions occur “after the fact”. In that, they are complicent

The Church has a 2,000 year history of accepting and even encouraging local adaptations conducive to the local audience. Adaptations have to start and after the fact, the Church determines if the adaptation is legitimate and authoritative or an abuse.

Even if an adaptation is later determined to be an abuse, I think that characterization of the initiators (esp. if the adaptation ultimately was approved by the local Bishop) as ill-intended is harsh and lacks Christian charity.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

Read the article linked by Buffalo. It makes it clear that Bishop’s have authority within the limits of their competence. Unless you know by direct knowledge that it was there wilful intent to disregard and violate their episcopal office in encouraging an abuse, I think that charity requires that we assume these Bishops believed honestly these “adaptations” were within the “limits of their competance.”

Bishops are not infallible. Can they make an incorrect decision and without ill-intent encourage an abuse? Of course. Should they not only cease and desist but correct with Teaching when instructed to by Rome? Absolutely. Should I advocate and support efforts to speed up the elimination of abuses? Absolutely.

But I will never characterize any Bishop uncharitably even when expressing disagreement. And attributing to a Bishop the motive of willful disregard or disrespect for Papal Authority in violation of his episcopal office is “bearing false witness” as only the most intimate to a particular Bishop’s motives have even the slightest evidence of what was in his heart. For the rest of us, such an assertion is a grave matter.

Right! But, if a Bishop acted out of ignorance and now the Pope/Rome issues instructions that state the contrary from that point forward the Bishop should stand corrected and cease the abuse immediately.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

The Church has a 2,000 year history of accepting and even encouraging local adaptations conducive to the local audience. Adaptations have to start and after the fact, the Church determines if the adaptation is legitimate and authoritative or an abuse.

Even if an adaptation is later determined to be an abuse, I think that characterization of the initiators (esp. if the adaptation ultimately was approved by the local Bishop) as ill-intended is harsh and lacks Christian charity.

Any change must go through the proper channels before, not introduced upon personal initiative.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

I did read it. I was addressing the “certain flexibility”.

No, it was specifically addressing the limits of a bishops competence. It is not addressing ‘certain’ flexibility, the ‘limited’ flexibility is limited only by the Bishop’s competence. Trust is granted by Rome to these bishops, as should our trust be given as well.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I am not trying to call an abuse by another name. I just don’t have the knowledge or competance or ego to think I’m able to distinguish in some of these matters whether it is a legitimate adaptation or abuse. Some people think it abuse for the laity to raise their hands in the Orans position during the Our Father. Others don’t. Personally, I don’t do it but until my Bishop is clear on the matter, I’m not going to judge those who do.

The adaptations are documented and can be read by all. In addition the current GIRM and US adpatations are contained in the Sacramentary, which you see every week on the Altar at Mass.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Right now a parish is deciding if women should preach at mass and the bishop has said it is licit. Should the laity look the other way and claim the bishop says it is ok so it must be ok?

People want very much to obey Rome. That is not the issue usually.

I think you will get near universal consensus that this issue is currently closed and is an abuse. Conversely, I think that we should also approach the issues of EMHC’s as currently closed and is not an abuse.

The issues on which there is less clarity is hand holding, orans, etc. While we might hold different opinions on whether these are legitimate adaptations or abuses, I think we should extend greater charity regarding the motives until the Mind of the Church is more clear.

 

[YinYangMom]

MrS:

My post was rather clear in stating an opinion… that the abuse started first… then bishops caved and accepted them. Again… show me any legitimate declaration that the “abuse” in question was initiated/approved before it began.

Since I don’t have evidence to refute your premise that all were starte by individuals abusing things…I’ll go from there…

My opinion would be then, that if the practice was indeed abusive to the liturgy, no bishop would have endorsed and adopted them. What you consider ‘caved in’ I would consider ‘recognized the value of such practices to enriching the service for all’.

The bottom line is there has been ample opportunity for local bishops, the USCCB as a whole and the Vatican to come down on any of these now accepted practices to call them as you see them - abuses bishops caved into allowing. The fact that there has not been such a response suggests to me that your opinion is not share by the Vatican.

I defer to the Holy See.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I think you will get near universal consensus that this issue is currently closed and is an abuse. Conversely, I think that we should also approach the issues of EMHC’s as currently closed and is not an abuse.

The issues on which there is less clarity is hand holding, orans, etc. While we might hold different opinions on whether these are legitimate adaptations or abuses, I think we should extend greater charity regarding the motives until the Mind of the Church is more clear.

Two points.

1. If there is universal consesus, that means someone must read something and come to a conclusion? If so, then that would put me at odds with my bishop. So we are allowed to reason?
2. The smaller issues of hand holding and such generate heat because many are “fed up” with all the other nonsense that is tolerated in catechesis and other areas. They see such things as symptoms of a greater problem.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Two points.

1. If there is universal consesus, that means someone must read something and come to a conclusion? If so, then that would put me at odds with my bishop. So we are allowed to reason?
2. The smaller issues of hand holding and such generate heat because many are “fed up” with all the other nonsense that is tolerated in catechesis and other areas. They see such things as symptoms of a greater problem.

We are encouraged to reason. However, we need to aspire to do so without regard to our own bias’. On most issues, you and I agree. If I were to see a woman preach the homily, I’d be tempted to leave the Church but would stay to the end but you can rest assured I’d report it to higher authorities. I don’t like or participate in orans or hand holding (except w/ my wife or children). I think that the predominant “flavor” of the Mass should be traditional. This being said, I don’t think that every adaptation or local custom contrary to my personal views is automatically an abuse. I’ve gone to enough Masses by my Bishop where the primary audience was students/youth, people of other cultures (Hispanic, Sudanese, Native American) to appreciate that there is room in the liturgy for it to have a “flavor” other than what I personally prefer. And I don’t have the ego to condemn these different “flavors” as something inferior to what I prefer.

Furthermore, frustration with major items does not justify a backlash against legitimate and authoritative adaptations approved and encouraged by a Bishop within the limits of his competence.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Furthermore, frustration with major items does not justify a backlash against legitimate and authoritative adaptations approved and encouraged by a Bishop within the limits of his competence.

I agree, that does not mean these posters who point out inconsistencies, irregularities and heterodoxy are not submissive. It means they sense problems and ask they be corrected as the Church says is our right, and at times, our duty.

Also, people are on guard for their souls and the souls of their children. That means careful discernment. It happens not infrequently that we find items from parishes conflict with the teaching of Rome and the bishop’s office turns a blind eye.

We live in strange times and need to read the signs.

 

[buffalo]

fix:

I agree, that does not mean these posters who point out inconsistencies, irregularities and heterodoxy are not submissive. It means they sense problems and ask they be corrected as the Church says is our right, and at times, our duty.

Also, people are on gurad for their souls and the souls of their children. That means careful discernment. It happens not infrequently that we find items from parishes conflict with the teaching of Rome and the bishop’s office turns a blind eye.

We live in strange times and need to read the signs.

Fix is correct. The faithful have righ****t to participate in a correct liturgy. It is their **duty **to protect it per RS.

 

[Quaere_Verum]

Allow me to be a simpleton in the sea of great minds who have posted here.

If the Church, as fix and buffalo state, requires the faithful to correct abuses then it is imperative that we know what they are. Therein lies the problem. Then my question is what exactly constitutes an abuse? The Redemptionis Sacramentum a grave matter of abuse is identified as “anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist”. Most of those are easy to identify; I suppose some are not. But how about lesser abuses? Is an abuse anything that deviates from the GIRM? If so then in order to identify one I need only to become familiar with the GIRM. If not then how can these be identified? What other source is available?