Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[JKirkLVNV]

domineutvideam:

I wouldn’t be so sure of the “if it’s not forbidden then it’s not an abuse” approach. We should be seeking a morality of excellence rather than a morality of obligation. We should use our freedom to pursue excellence in how we treat the Blessed Sacrament rather than measuring each step we take to see how close we can step to the line without crossing over. Imagine if I were to apply the concept that if it’s not explicitly forbidden then it’s not abuse to my own moral life. . .

But that’s the problem: “Morality of excellence” wouldn’t apply to the hand holding that’s been cited. Absent a clear instruction, it’s anyone’s opinion as to what is permissible. Those who hold hands aren’t any more lacking in moral excellence than those who don’t (I don’t, for what it’s worth). I wish they’d tell us “yes,” or “no.”

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

The Holy Spirit does not contradict canon law.

The Holy Spirit revealed canon law…
the Holy Spirit can reveal more behind the canon law…
and it can take considerable time for the deeper revelation to make it through councils and to print.

This is the deposit of faith we rely upon with all Church teachings, no? The Church’s understanding of God’s will with regard to His people is entrusted to them first and foremost, not you and me.

This is why I have no problem obeying the guidance of my bishop with these ‘iffy’ practices. If he says yes, then I obey. If he says no, then I obey. If he says, you can if you wish, then I go with the preference discerned through my own prayers to the Holy Spirit to guide me in the matter.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

No - adaptations approved by Rome are surely legit.

I should have been more clear. I was responding to this: People here mistake variations for abuses too frequently, imo

What did you mean by variations?

Whew, we’re on the same page now, thanks!

i meant variations to be adaptations…those which are entrusted to the bishop’s competence to determine whether or not they should be allowed.

 

[netmilsmom]

YinYangMom:

The Our Father and the orans thing…
some people are absolutely convince this is an abuse.

The Church, however, has not made that determination.

Those who go to their priests accusing them of allowing abuses in the liturgy because they did not stop people from holding hands during the Our Father or from raising their own hands during the Our Father, and/or tell everyone in their parish and here on the boards that their priest allows abuses during the liturgy certainly bears close resemblence to bearing false witness about that priest/bishop, does it not?

I really prefer to call Handholding and Orans innovations. Such as was Liturgical Dance for a long time.
Because the Vatican is not clear on discouraging either in the liturgy and have left a crack for a rationalizing Catholic to slip into, these are not abuses. Abuses must clearly be stated as something not allowed and disregarded by someone in authority. That is not the case with either Handholding nor Orans.

Both are very much like Liturgical Dance. Those in authority looked away for a very long time. The same Abuse/Innovation debates could have been stated then. Before the ball dropped, Liturgical Dance was not an abuse. Now it is.

I don’t like Orans and Handholding, I don’t think they are right but they are not abuses.

I do wonder, however, if laying prostrate became in vogue, would the modernists defend it as much?

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

You have left out recourse to just authority.

Help me out here. Wouldn’t recourse to just authority be you going to your priest with the concern of practice A being an abuse?

If he says no, it’s not an abuse then unless you have substantial evidence contrary to that, your recourse is finished.

If he says yes, then he should stop the practice.
If he doesn’t, then the next recourse to just authority would be the bishop. You’d write to him about your previous conversation with the priest. He’d say yes, it’s an abuse, or no, it’s not an abuse.

If he says it is an abuse you’d expect him to get the priest to stop it. If he doesn’t, then you’d report it to the archbishop.

If the bishop says it is not an abuse, then again, your recourse is finished.

Also, let us be careful not to characterize reports, news items, personal experiences as unworthy of discussion, praise or criticism.

You lost me on that point. I don’t understand the relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Quaere_Verum]

Joysong:

Dear YYM,
So many who read internet documents think they know as much as our clergy who have trained for many years and walked the walk for many more. The clergy have access to letters and communications, meetings in their diocese with fellow priests, and so much more than a proudful scholar who happens to think (s)he is capable of disseminating one’s own superior knowledge to the Bishop.

Carole

I found this comment interesting. When I told my physician I would have to read up on the medication he recommended before I would take it he said, “That’s fine, but keep in mind that I studied medicine for 14 years. If I were to read on airplanes and flying all day on the internet you wouldn’t expect me to be able to fly a plane the next day.” Your comment on the clergy reminded me of this.

 

[netmilsmom]

YinYangMom:

The Holy Spirit revealed canon law…
the Holy Spirit can reveal more behind the canon law…
and it can take considerable time for the deeper revelation to make it through councils and to print.

This is the deposit of faith we rely upon with all Church teachings, no? The Church’s understanding of God’s will with regard to His people is entrusted to them first and foremost, not you and me.

This is why I have no problem obeying the guidance of my bishop with these ‘iffy’ practices. If he says yes, then I obey. If he says no, then I obey. If he says, you can if you wish, then I go with the preference discerned through my own prayers to the Holy Spirit to guide me in the matter.

But also, ego can get in the way of the Holy Spirit. Even in Bishops.
I’m with you, I obey. I obeyed my way to a parish that has a liturgy that the original Bishops of Vatican II would be proud of.

Thank you Dear Fr. Ben for your strength and humility.

 

[buffalo]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I really prefer to call Handholding and Orans innovations. Such as was Liturgical Dance for a long time.
Because the Vatican is not clear on discouraging either in the liturgy and have left a crack for a rationalizing Catholic to slip into, these are not abuses. Abuses must clearly be stated as something not allowed and disregarded by someone in authority. That is not the case with either Handholding nor Orans.

I don’t think the Church believes the faithful should be trying different things in the Liturgy. Much has happened as a result of misguided Litrugy Commissions.

The Church will never have a list of forbidden practices for She cannot predict the lengths some will go to. As She publishes one another will soon be needed. Rather She entrusts that Tradition prevail and the Liturgy preserved. Thus people acting and trying to get through the cracks (legalism) is against the “mind of the Church”. It is these people who should “cease and desist” trying to pressure the Liturgy into something of their own making.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

You are not a canon law expert so you don’t know if all things you characterize are an abuse or a legitimate adaptation. Furthermore, “blind eye” has a very specific accusation attached as it means one turns away such as to be a deriliction of duty.

Another assertion of deriliction of duty.

Did I name a specfic bishop? I gave a general characterization. And one does not have to be a canon lawyer to accept they are irregularities, or dissent happening. Are you denying such things happen?

Do you want me to post your words from the one about Bishops distancing themselves from the Vatican? This is where your words are much more accusing of the Bishop’s motives. I know you don’t want us to mix threads but the points end up being the same in both these threads- you question the competance, motives and bias of others including Bishops and you claim to have greater clarity into the Mind of the Church than legitimate Church authorities.

The thread in question posted a report that showed a particular bishop spoke words that contracicted a Vatican instruction. I agreed with the reporting. Can one not see that a person’s words contradict a statement?

As a lay person, I consider it grave matter for me to accept your views over legitimate Church authority (in this case your interpretation of certain adaptations being abuses or that all adaptations are inherently illicit). Additionally, I don’t believe it is appropriate for me to “turn a blind eye” when I see the seeds of disunity and diminishment of the Church being sown.

No one is forcing you to accept anything. By what authority to you claim you may discern disunity?

 

[Eileen_T]

YinYangMom:

Is it not possible that the Holy Spirit works through these ‘instigators’ to improve the faith of the parish community? Perhaps the Spirit moves the person to make the suggestion - that the suggestion isn’t even their own, but one sent by the Spirit to be communicated to the priest. The priest then would have to reflect and pray over the matter to come up with a decision within the limits of his competence, right? If the suggestion is not of the Spirit, the priest/bishop would be able to discern that. I trust in that.

I don’t accept that priests and bishops can be regarded as infallible in these matters. I suspect that they make certain changes believing they are “improvements” rather than liturgical abuses.

In an earlier post I mentioned the incremental nature of “minor” abuses paving the way for larger ones. For example, we had a new PP who, after he had settled into the parish and got to know people, started making changes in the Mass.

At that time very few parishes in our Diocese were holding hands during the Our Father and some of us were uncomfortable with his direction for us to do so. During the ‘Sign of Peace’ he came down to the front row where my family always sat and commented to me about us not doing so. (After that we sat down the back of the Church!)

During daily Mass he started gathering parishioners around the altar (a small town) and directed each communicant to give communion to the person next to them.

That was followed by directing everyone to join in the Great Doxology, first at daily Mass, then at Sunday Mass, despite some objections.

I held my peace, although not joining in the Great Doxology, until, for the third Sunday in a row, he substituted other prayers for the Creed. I privately pointed out to him the the Creed was not optional at Sunday Mass. He was not happy with me for giving him the GIRM reference.

As I mentioned in my previous post, some priests act in ignorance because they do not read Church documents. This particular priest admitted he had not read Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest, when questioned by a parishioner in my presence.

This is just one priest in one parish, but I believe it illustrates what can happen when the laity sit back and do or say nothing.

I later found out that in his previous 9rural) parish, some parishioners travelled many miles to attend Mass elsewhere because they were unhappy with his innovations. For me, it was only 20 minutes to the next parish.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

This is why I have no problem obeying the guidance of my bishop with these ‘iffy’ practices. If he says yes, then I obey. If he says no, then I obey. If he says, you can if you wish, then I go with the preference discerned through my own prayers to the Holy Spirit to guide me in the matter.

From RS:

[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]

 

[netmilsmom]

Quaere Verum:

I found this comment interesting. When I told my physician I would have to read up on the medication he recommended before I would take it he said, “That’s fine, but keep in mind that I studied medicine for 14 years. If I were to read on airplanes and flying all day on the internet you wouldn’t expect me to be able to fly a plane the next day.” Your comment on the clergy reminded me of this.

I was an Office Manager for a fine doctor. I would have fallen off my chair if he had said this to a patient. How much Continuing Medical Education can cover every new medication? My Boss wanted all the info from patients that they could find, discuss and calm the fears of those he prescribed the meds to.

Many a medication has been pulled from the market. I would think that a doctor would be happy to have a thoughtful patient. Better than being sued later on.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

If the bishop says it is not an abuse, then again, your recourse is finished.

Not true - RS gives you recourse to Rome.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

You have stated the position that reason is enough to determine what is, or is not, a liturgical abuse and because of said reason you would not only have the right, but the duty to point out such a position to your priest and/or bishop.

What I’m saying is reason alone is not enough to make such a determination when clearly the issues are not as cut and dry by Vatican standards as they are by your own standards of reason.

That is not what I said, that is your misunderstanding. You want to eliminate right reason and introduce a type of clericalism. No one has stated the bishop does not have proper authority, but to imply the laity can’t comprehend even the most clear and simple item is clericalism of the highest order.

 

[netmilsmom]

buffalo:

I don’t think the Church believes the faithful should be trying different things in the Liturgy. Much has happened as a result of misguided Litrugy Commissions.

The Church will never have a list of forbidden practices for She cannot predict the lengths some will go to. As She publishes one another will soon be needed. Rather She entrusts that Tradition prevail and the Liturgy preserved. Thus people acting and trying to get through the cracks (legalism) is against the “mind of the Church”. It is these people who should “cease and desist” trying to pressure the Liturgy into something of their own making.

I agree with you.
However, in this time, the church as continued to come down on the largest innovations and I feel will continue to do away with the little ones.
Time and B16! God Willing!

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I was an Office Manager for a fine doctor. I would have fallen off my chair if he had said this to a patient. How much Continuing Medical Education can cover every new medication? My Boss wanted all the info from patients that they could find, discuss and calm the fears of those he prescribed the meds to.

Many a medication has been pulled from the market. I would think that a doctor would be happy to have a thoughtful patient. Better than being sued later on.

You beat me to it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Did I name a specfic bishop? I gave a general characterization. And one does not have to be a canon lawyer to accept they are irregularities, or dissent happening. Are you denying such things happen?

The thread in question posted a report that showed a particular bishop spoke words that contracicted a Vatican instruction. I agreed with the reporting. Can one not see that a person’s words contradict a statement?

No one is forcing you to accept anything. By what authority to you claim you may discern disunity?

 

[fix]

buffalo:

Not true - RS gives you recourse to Rome.

My point as well.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Not true - RS gives you recourse to Rome.

Wait. Are you saying that your going to the priest about something you perceive to be an abuse entitles you to take that same concern to Rome after the priest, his bishop and the archbishop have explained to you it is not an abuse and why?

 

[Della]

The only thing I find disturbing is when the priest is the initiator of an abuse, probably to please some element in his parish. There’s a parish only 3 blocks from out house where it would be much simpler for us to be members. But, we are members of a parish in another city because not only does the priest at the nearby parish encourage handing holding and the orans (minor abuses, IMHO) but he allows the EMHCs to elevate the consecrated host and cup when the priest elevates them at the altar–a very serious abuse. The whole of the Mass is conducted with a loose attitude with music only kids at summer camp could think good. The leaders of that parish have the notion that THEY not the bishop are the ones who decide what is and isn’t correct for the Mass. That is the real danger I see in parishes that allow even minor abuses–there’s an attitude of possession instead of submission, as they ought to have. Unless and until they clean up their act at that nearby the parish, we will not be members there.