Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

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?

If you can read, and it’s clearly written, absolutely. In fact RS says it is a duty.

RS

1. The Apostolic See

[181.] Whenever the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or an abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, it informs the Ordinary so that he may investigate the matter. When the matter turns out to be serious, the Ordinary should send to the same Dicastery as quickly as possible a copy of the acts of the inquiry that has been undertaken, and where necessary, the penalty imposed.

[182.] In more difficult cases the Ordinary, for the sake of the good of the universal Church in the care for which he too has a part by virtue of his sacred Ordination, should not fail to handle the matter, having previously taken advice from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. For its part, this Congregation, on the strength of the faculties given to it by the Roman Pontiff, according to the nature of the case, will assist the Ordinary, granting him the necessarydispensations[289] or giving him instructions or prescriptions, which he is to follow diligently.

 

[Quaere_Verum]

O.K., let me try to pull all this together. There are occurances which are grave abuses as they put at risk the validity & dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist. These are major and need to be immediately corrected. Then there are what have been referred to as minor abuses, variations, deviations from, innovations, adaptations. I think some refer to the same thing while others (adaptations and variations perhaps) refer to something different. These are not as serious as grave abuses. However, if they are not a part of the GIRM or the RS then they need to be identified and minimized whenever possible.

Now, as a lay person I need to become informed familiarizing myself with the GIRM & RS, reading, perhaps even getting information from the bishop. Then when I identify an abuse I should first mention it to the priest or pastor with charity of course. Then if repeated attempts to stop abuse are not successful then these should be mentioned to the bishop - chain of command.

All of this needs to occur without distracting me from the Sacrifice of the Mass. When deviations from the GIRM occur I shouldn’t let it steal the peace and joy I should be feeling during the Mass or receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. If I do then, guess what, Satan wins a battle within me. This is easier than it sounds. So if I have a tendency/weakness to be distracted during the Mass over minor deviations, is it not better for me to take a simpler appoach to worship - celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass and not worry too much about the minor details?
Big sigh! There really was a simpler time.

 

[fix]

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.

Now, your post immediately will seem wrong to some posters here. You can’t call anything an abuse as you have no authority, or ability to reason.

Additionally, music and such is part of inculteration.

 

[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?

I’m denying nothing. I know there are abuses. I’ve stated that with specific examples. However, I’m not accepting you as a legitimate Church Authority regarding the issues that are still open (orans position, hand holding, etc) despite the fact I don’t particularly like them. I also don’t think that the matter is as clear as you try to present them. For this reason, I don’t characterize them as “abuses” until a legitimate authority does so in a more specific manner than the sources you and Buffalo reference.

Secondly, the thread to which you reference, there are two news sources quoted on two different Bishops. When I looked beyond the news source on one Bishop, it became obvious that the new source deleted a portion of the quotation from the Bishop. Such selective editing to “prove” a point is disingenous and misleading. Continual reference to the edited version is equally misleading. The other quotation doesn’t have a link for one to examine the Bishops comments in context. Based on the errancy of hte first quote, I think charity would indicate that we shouldn’t be so quick to give credence to the second quote.

Finally, IMHO, your characterization of your interpretation as clear and fully consistent with the Mind of the Church when not everyone sees it so clearly fosters disunity. Unity would be served by at least extending the possibility that your interpretation may not be correct. But you extend no such possibility.

I apologize that I wasn’t so clear that it was my opinion that the presentation as fact when it is only personal opinion and interpretation fosters disunity. Concurrently, IMHO, referring to people who differ w/ you as modernists, progressives, heretics, or heterodox also fosters disunity.

 

[Joysong]

Does anyone else get the impression that we are going nowhere in a big hurry? Do words ever convince someone who is fixated in personal opinion? No wonder the Council took seven years to conclude. (sigh):banghead:

 

[fix]

buffalo:

If you can read, and it’s clearly written, absolutely. In fact RS says it is a duty.

RS

1. The Apostolic See

[181.] Whenever the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or an abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, it informs the Ordinary so that he may investigate the matter. When the matter turns out to be serious, the Ordinary should send to the same Dicastery as quickly as possible a copy of the acts of the inquiry that has been undertaken, and where necessary, the penalty imposed.

[182.] In more difficult cases the Ordinary, for the sake of the good of the universal Church in the care for which he too has a part by virtue of his sacred Ordination, should not fail to handle the matter, having previously taken advice from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. For its part, this Congregation, on the strength of the faculties given to it by the Roman Pontiff, according to the nature of the case, will assist the Ordinary, granting him the necessarydispensations[289] or giving him instructions or prescriptions, which he is to follow diligently.

The problem is you are not a canon lawyer or bishop and may not understand the more complex language.

 

[buffalo]

con’t

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[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.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law,** or** to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t need to be a canon lawyer to understand the last post. (#126)

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I’m denying nothing. I know there are abuses. I’ve stated that with specific examples. However, I’m not accepting you as a legitimate Church Authority regarding the issues that are still open (orans position, hand holding, etc) despite the fact I don’t particularly like them. I also don’t think that the matter is as clear as you try to present them. For this reason, I don’t characterize them as “abuses” until a legitimate authority does so in a more specific manner than the sources you and Buffalo reference.

Who is forcing you to accept my words? It seems to be you who wants me to accept your personal authority?

Secondly, the thread to which you reference, there are two news sources quoted on two different Bishops. When I looked beyond the news source on one Bishop, it became obvious that the new source deleted a portion of the quotation from the Bishop. Such selective editing to “prove” a point is disingenous and misleading. Continual reference to the edited version is equally misleading.

The other portion did not change the context or meaning.

The other quotation doesn’t have a link for one to examine the Bishops comments in context. Based on the errancy of hte first quote, I think charity would indicate that we shouldn’t be so quick to give credence to the second quote.

It was an article. We comment on the content.

Finally, IMHO, your characterization of your interpretation as clear and fully consistent with the Mind of the Church when not everyone sees it so clearly fosters disunity. Unity would be served by at least extending the possibility that your interpretation may not be correct. But you extend no such possibility.

I can’t force my view on anyone. It is free to be accepted or rejected. Your authority to discern disunity is no different than my authority to read and discern.

 

[buffalo]

Joysong:

Does anyone else get the impression that we are going nowhere in a big hurry? Do words ever convince someone who is fixated in personal opinion? No wonder the Council took seven years to conclude. (sigh):banghead:

Nope - it is clear - someone with a **complaint **can take it right to the Holy See.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

I don’t need to be a canon lawyer to understand the last post.

Apparently, you do. Then again, I must accept the authority of those posters claiming that you need to be a lawyer. Is this circular yet?

 

[buffalo]

fix:

Apparently, you do. Then again, I must accept the authority of those posters claiming that you need to be a lawyer. Is this circular yet?

I was doing OK until this.

 

[fix]

I was doing OK until this.

Obviously, I have been kidding you.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

RS and the GIRM are written for us. RS directly speaks to the faithful.

It does?!

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT

INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

---

---

This title page alone suggests to me that it is written for the ordained. No where does it suggest it is directed to you and me.

In the preamble it states:

In order that especially in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy the Church might duly safeguard so great a mystery in our own time as well, the Supreme Pontiff has mandated that this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,[8] in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, should prepare this Instruction treating of certain matters pertaining to the discipline of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Those things found in this Instruction are therefore to be read in the continuity with the above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

Reaffirming this document was intended for priests first and foremost.

Continuing with the preamble note also:

It is not at all the intention here to prepare a compendium of the norms regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, but rather, to take up within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force in order to assure a deeper appreciation of the liturgical norms;[9] to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at his disposal.

Which to me, says, this is not an extensive document designed to cover everything, but to reiterate some.

I particularly appreciated these statements:

[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.

[19.] The diocesan Bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him,** is the moderator, promoter and guardian** of her whole liturgical life.

[23.] The faithful “should cling to the Bishop as the Church does to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ does to the Father, so that all may be in harmonious unity, and that they may abound to the glory of God”.

So it seems rather clear to me that this document was written as further instruction to bishops to get their houses in order, it’s a reminder to them of the trust the Church places on them and the obligation they have to honor said trust.

Where it addresses the rights of the faithful that does not mean the entire document was written for the faithful. The passages serve to remind the bishops of what the faithul have the right to expect from them.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

So it seems rather clear to me that this document was written as further instruction to bishops to get their houses in order, it’s a reminder to them of the trust the Church places on them and the obligation they have to honor said trust.

Where it addresses the rights of the faithful that does not mean the entire document was written for the faithful. The passages serve to remind the bishops of what the faithul have the right to expect from them.

The document has been posted for the public on the Bishops site. If it were a private correspondance (of which I am sure they get some) it would not be published. It’s in the public domain. Point conceded that it is for the Bishops to get their house in order, but it is also a call for the laity to hold them accountable for it gives us a clear path for recourse.

Therefore I still conclude it was directed to the faithful as well. When I first read it I felt it was speaking directly to me.

 

[netmilsmom]

buffalo:

The document has been posted for the public on the Bishops site. If it were a private correspondance (of which I am sure they get some) it would not be published. Point conceded that it is for the Bishops to get their house in order, but it is also a call for the laity to hold them accountable for it gives us a clear path for recourse.

Therefore I still conclude it was directed to the faithful as well. When I first read it I felt it was speaking directly to me.

It’s posted on our parish’s website, directly from the USCCB.
It is a guide for the Bishops but meant to be a reference for the laity.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

con’t

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[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.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law,** or** to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

And I assume if the Bishop disagrees w/ you directly or by taking no action, you will then be satisfied? If you take it to the Pope, and he disagrees with you directly or by taking no action, you will then be satisfied? I encourage you to lodge your complaint if you are inclined. In the meantime, I’ll assume that my Bishop’s interpretation is more credible than yours.

 

[Della]

fix:

Now, your post immediately will seem wrong to some posters here. You can’t call anything an abuse as you have no authority, or ability to reason.

Additionally, music and such is part of inculteration.

Firstly, this thread has become a grudge match between posters instead of a discussion of the issue, so I demure to add anything more to it.

Secondly, and for the record, I didn’t say any particular kind of music is an abuse. I only mentioned the music as one more reason why the parish I used as an example doesn’t suit us. That would mean nothing, however, if there were no serious abuses taking place at that parish.

Thirdly, and finally, my main point was that when the priest himself is the one who introduces abuses, it usually reflects what a certain vocal or influential element in the parish wants. Instead, the priest ought to be following his bishop’s instructions and the GIRM not the wishes of anyone in his parish.

And finally, I see no reason why people can’t assume good will on the part of other posters. If we can’t do that then there is no good reason to discuss anything on the forum.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

The document has been posted for the public on the Bishops site. If it were a private correspondance (of which I am sure they get some) it would not be published. It’s in the public domain. Point conceded that it is for the Bishops to get their house in order, but it is also a call for the laity to hold them accountable for it gives us a clear path for recourse.

Therefore I still conclude it was directed to the faithful as well. When I first read it I felt it was speaking directly to me.

It might be fully intended for the Bishops and not the laity. Posting on the internet could be to make it easily available to Bishops and Priests and not to be used by the laity to condemn or criticize the Church’s legitimate authority. However, I’m pretty confident that the document wasn’t intended to be a personal revelation for you.

 

[netmilsmom]

Della:

And finally, I see no reason why people can’t assume good will on the part of other posters. If we can’t do that then there is no good reason to discuss anything on the forum.

Maybe because some of us have been the brunt of unwarranted bad will?