Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[buffalo]

Joysong:

Dear Buffalo,

Please provide sources that show substituting a hymn for the Psalm is OK.

The song I mentioned is arranged in antiphonal and metric form, and is approved by my diocesan Bishop. It is used quite often. If you are not a music minister understanding antiphony and such, you would not realize it is proper. Not having full understanding is the very thing that I tried to point out:

So if one happens to read a few instructions in the GIRM , it is assumed many things are an abuse, and in this case is none at all, and if it were, it is not among those that are very grave matter. What the casual reader does not know is that the Bishop/priest knows what is lawful, what is permitted, what constitutes abuse. We do not have all the background, and we are not appointed by God to be liturgical police, as was discussed a few pages ago. It is our place to obey, until and unless we are positive it is a grave matter.

It is always best to ask questions first, and I would have to ask you whether you tried to inform yourself about this with either the pastor or the organist?

Carole

Uh no! It’s more than that. Before the Mass a hymn (not psalm, not antiphon,) from the hymnal is picked to suit the theme of the day’s Gospel. They are not allowed as RS is very clear - Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

You need to understand that I have done my homework as well as attended the GIRM 2002 breakout meetings for music.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Why? Because Satan is attacking the Church from every possible avenue, and yes, as it was in the beginning of the Church this battle will continue until the end of time. It helps to keep our perspective on the long term rather than get caught up in the short term.

Well, simply put, this is why He gave us the Church and the Pope.

At the most basic level each Catholic must adhere to the Precepts of the Church (from the Catechism):

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.”) requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.

The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year.”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.

The third precept (“You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season.”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.

2043 The fourth precept (“You shall keep holy the holy days of obligation.”) completes the Sunday observance by participation in the principal liturgical feasts which honor the mysteries of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, and the saints.

The fifth precept (“You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts; they help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.

Yes, as I noted before, I sincerely believe there are a select group of faithful servants of the Church who have been blessed by the Holy Spirit to discern the various Church documents on a ‘laity’ level in order to help protect their parishes from abuses. The Spirit will work through them to effect change.

In the meantimes the rest of us need to pray and do what we can to help those who have been moved to protect the parish. They deserve our respect and support.

There is an additional precept - spend 15 minutes per day learning your Faith.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

At the same time, Buffalo, it might help if you can reflect back to the times hymns were used to see whether or not those hymns did indeed contain psalm passages within them.

When I get home I will look at the instruction book the directors get with regard to music in the liturgy to see if I can find anything specifically about this.

One suggestion - make sure they are Orthodox, not all publications are.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

I guess I’m trying to protect all the ‘simple’ Catholics from having to learn that lesson though, if they haven’t already been exposed to it. Do you understand where I’m coming from?

The starting point for all Catholics is to assume our clergy are in full communion with Rome. I don’t think it’s wise to add to that, “unless of course, it becomes obvious they are not” Even making that broad exception plants in the faithful’s mind a grain of doubt that can fester and be used by Satan to pull them away from the Church.

To that end, I believe, those of you who are blessed with the gifts of the Spirit to recognize abuses and act accordingly to protect your parishes from them should also exercise confidentiality in an attempt to shield those you seek to protect. Better to handle the matter swiftly and silently, imo, than to alarm those who have not been blessed by the Spirit to properly digest this news. But that’s just my thinking.

I am not even sure how we started on this point. My opinion is we all need to inform ourselves, even the CCC says we have a serious obligation to learn the faith and properly form our consciences. That being said i am not claiming we need to dissect what full communion means, but we ought to know if one is teaching something contrary to Church teaching. That is a minimal obligation I would think.

That does not mean we have to confront that person necessarily, but to inform ourselves is to protect our souls.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Uh no! It’s more than that. Before the Mass a hymn (not psalm, not antiphon,) from the hymnal is picked to suit the theme of the day’s Gospel. They are not allowed as RS is very clear - Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

You need to understand that I have done my homework as well as attended the GIRM 2002 breakout meetings for music.

Hmmm. Your earlier post states that psalms arranged in metrical form are allowed. Please clarify how we misunderstood your cut and paste from the GIRM.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

This response is to Buffalo’s answer to his own questions. Please refer to his post below as the size of post doesn’t allow me to include his original post.

1. I still don’t have any accurate picture of what he describes here. Thus I am unable to respond on whether I agree his interpretation of it being an abuse is correct. Also, I don’t know what the reference to “teen Masses” mean. Is he saying that teen Masses are an abuse? What makes a teen Mass an abuse?
   2-5) Based on the description Buffalo provided, the backup he provided or my own understanding, I concur that these are abuses.
2. I concur at minimum that this is discouraged. I don’t know if there are special circumstances that would allow it. However, considering that the Real Presence has been consecrated, I doubt it.
3. This is allowed according to Buffalos post: “psalms arranged in metrical form”. Does anyone know what arranged in metrical form is? Is this what would appear to be a song/hymn? If so, what I described in my post may not be an abuse and Buffalo’s characterization of it being an abuse may be misleading. If not, he may be correct.
4. We concur
5. I’m not sure that this would be characterized as changing the Mass. There are specific directions that certain prayers/processes are to be followed exactly (ie the Eucharistic Prayer) because of the importance of the words are critical to the “form and substance” while in other places the words are not quite so critical (i.e. the invitation/preamble to praying the the Confiteor). However, I think that adding the words “The Mass never ends” (which is a Teaching of the Church as per my earlier post) at the end of the dismissal may not be an abuse. I’d have to see something to the effect that the exact words are specifically spelled out.
6. We concur
7. I don’t know for sure what Buffalo observed so I don’t know if his application of the USCCB instruction is appropriate. In our Church, the choir is to the side of the sanctuary. Our parish is responsible for ministering to the deaf community in our city. The different choirs in our parish try to at least sign the refrain of most songs and have now learned to sign the Gloria and Holy Holy in an effort to communicate welcome to this special community. Is this a prohibited liturgical gesturing? Or how about when a deaf member signs the epistle readings with the interpreter providing vocal?

I do find Joysong’s post stating that the RS has over 295 footnotes such that for ANYBODY to feel sufficiently confident they are making an accurate interpretation to have at least read through these references. And even if they did, I’m still not sure that a lay person can fully grasp the full intention of the GIRM due to a lack of training and knowledge in the genesis and intracacies of the Mass.

Additionally, I do find the USCCB’s Committee on the Liturgy GIRM’s Chapter IX- Adaptations Within the Competence of Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences an interesting read on this matter and specifically paragraphs 395-399. usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml

I specifically refer to the following:

“Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops’ Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision.”

In other words, what we think we see as an abuse might actually be an approved experiment.

Finally, if you read Chapter 9, it talks about how Bishops are allowed to introduce adaptations for the benefit of the faithful under a defined approval and vetting process. Throughout the document there are clear indication that it is the Bishop charged w/ determining what is for the benefit of the faithful in that culture.

Now I have a question: If a Bishop properly follows the defined vetting and approval process for an adaptation and recieves approval from the Vatican for the adaptation, will the change be footnoted in the USCCB’s GIRM or will we have to find it in another place? This is a critical point. If we don’t know if there might be an approved adaptation, how can we judge if what we see is for sure an abuse or not?

You can find the currently approved adaptations in the GIRM. You will quickly see that kneeling during the Consecration in the US is an adaptation and that I do not label it an abuse. Final approval must come from the Congregation of Divine Worship, for no one not even a Priest (which includes Bishops) on his own authority can change the liturgy.

I would accept documentation, or a reply showing the granted experimentation, its duration etc…

 

[Joysong]

Dear Buffalo,

I think I should duck your night-stick, for it is close to batting me.

Did you miss the part about being approved by the Diocesan Bishop? Did you miss that it is not wrong on our part to obey? Did you miss the part that the song is the psalm and has a proper antiphon for the people to respond to? Admittedly, no one should do a private hymn that is not the psalm of the day, or that does not have a response for the congregation to participate. But maybe I should send my Bishop to you, since you have the RS, huh?

Are you telling me it is a grave abuse to sing the psalm response in antiphon fashion rather than recite it? Somewhere I heard that to sing is to pray twice.

Or what webs we weave with our own interpretations…

Carole

 

[YinYangMom]

This is a critical point. If we don’t know if there might be an approved adaptation, how can we judge if what we see is for sure an abuse or not?

Then this is where when someone like fix or buffalo (this is a good thing, guys, don’t cry because I’m using you as examples) would receive a letter, phone call or statement from the bishop explaining what they reported was an approved adaptation. If they ask the right questions the office of the bishop would provide supporting documentation/responses.

This is another reason why I recommend obeying until such a ruling is made/explanation offered. This way, if it turns out everything was ok all along, the person questioning it would be certain he/she is not committing the sin of disobedience to the Church along the way.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

There is an additional precept - spend 15 minutes per day learning your Faith.

I didn’t see that in the Catechism.

I agree it is wise counsel, but I’m not certain it’s a Precept.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

You can find the currently approved adaptations in the GIRM. You will quickly see that kneeling during the Consecration in the US is an adaptation and that I do not label it an abuse. Final approval must come from the Congregation of Divine Worship, for no one not even a Priest (which includes Bishops) on his own authority can change the liturgy.

I would accept documentation, or a reply showing the granted experimentation, its duration etc…

In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.

• Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See*, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops’ Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision.158

1. Before, however, proceeding to new adaptations, especially those more thoroughgoing, great care should be taken to* promote the proper instruction of clergy and faithful *in a wise and orderly fashion, so as to take advantage of the faculties already foreseen and to implement fully the pastoral norms concerning the spirit of a celebration.
2. Furthermore, the principle shall be respected according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).159

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

One suggestion - make sure they are Orthodox, not all publications are.

They are part of my required reading provided by the Diocese because I’m a member of the Liturgy Committee. There are about 8 separate manuals! Haven’t gotten through all of them yet. Several are difficult to process, as you can appreciate.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

Hmmm. Your earlier post states that psalms arranged in metrical form are allowed. Please clarify how we misunderstood your cut and paste from the GIRM.

They are - I quoted the GIRM. Metric is simply a form of the style of music from what I understand.

 

[buffalo]

Joysong:

Dear Buffalo,

I think I should duck your night-stick, for it is close to batting me.

Did you miss the part about being approved by the Diocesan Bishop? Did you miss that it is not wrong on our part to obey? Did you miss the part that the song is the psalm and has a proper antiphon for the people to respond to? Admittedly, no one should do a private hymn that is not the psalm of the day, or that does not have a response for the congregation to participate. But maybe I should send my Bishop to you, since you have the RS, huh?

Are you telling me it is a grave abuse to sing the psalm response in antiphon fashion rather than recite it? Somewhere I heard that to sing is to pray twice.

Or what webs we weave with our own interpretations…

Carole

Excuse me while I duck. I don’t think I said anywhere a Psalm cannot be sung or recited. Please quote me if I did so I can clarify.

What I said is a hymn cannot be substituted for the Psalm - not my words -RSSSSSS!!

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Then this is where when someone like fix or buffalo (this is a good thing, guys, don’t cry because I’m using you as examples) would receive a letter, phone call or statement from the bishop explaining what they reported was an approved adaptation. If they ask the right questions the office of the bishop would provide supporting documentation/responses.

Correct - an inquiry should be made with charity and a response received. I would appreciate an answer to my inquiry.

Agreed!

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

we ought to know if one is teaching something contrary to Church teaching. That is a minimal obligation I would think.

Yes, one would think that, alas it is so not the case :crying:
otherwise we wouldn’t have so many divorces, married couples using ABC, etc.

Let’s also not forget several of our members on this board who have shared their disappointment to learn, only after having visited these boards, that the guidance their priests offered to them was wrong all along. Evidence that many of these ‘contrary’ teachings aren’t so obvious.

That does not mean we have to confront that person necessarily, but to inform ourselves is to protect our souls.

I agree, conditionally. Reading (informing) does not ensure proper understanding, though. That, I sincerely believe, is granted by the Holy Spirit according to His time-table.

I say this because I read/heard scripture all my life, the same passages over and over, when suddenly one time its meaning is different. Same words, but this time, the meaning carries a different message than I had attached to it all the times before. I didn’t seek this different meaning, God spoke to me through it.

To read the specifics of what an abuse is, or the particulars of how a Mass is to be conducted does not automatically enable the reader the ability to recognize abuses from adaptations. It just doesn’t. It isn’t black and white even though the pages/words are. Joysong rightfully noted there are hundreds of footnotes corresponding to other documents which may provide exceptions not stated in the source document.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Buffalo,

When I told you that we use for Psalm 23, “Shepherd Me O God,” which happens also to be a hymn, you corrected me that it was not allowed. Yet it is the psalm of the day, with all the words, albeit not exactly verbatim as in the bible due to metrical construction, but it is all there. The response for the people is sung in antiphon form as the psalm is sung.

Maybe you did not read my post fully? Keep in mind that one may recite the Divine Office, and one may also chant it in choir. These are not abuses. Each psalm of the Office has an antiphon which begins and ends the psalm, so when we do this at Mass, it is simply a practice that has been in the church for ages.

I just remembered to mention that we sing the psalm at every Sunday liturgy, for we have cantors who lead us. The words do not identically match the sacramentary where a lector must proclaim the psalm if there is no cantor, such as at daily mass. The church has approved these psalm responses in booklet form, a liturgical aid called “Respond and Acclaim” which follows the current cycle of the Church in arranging the psalm and the gospel acclamataion to music.

Carole

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Yes, one would think that, alas it is so not the case :crying:
otherwise we wouldn’t have so many divorces, married couples using ABC, etc.

Let’s also not forget several of our members on this board who have shared their disappointment to learn, only after having visited these boards, that the guidance their priests offered to them was wrong all along. Evidence that many of these ‘contrary’ teachings aren’t so obvious.

I agree, conditionally. Reading (informing) does not ensure proper understanding, though. That, I sincerely believe, is granted by the Holy Spirit according to His time-table.

I say this because I read/heard scripture all my life, the same passages over and over, when suddenly one time its meaning is different. Same words, but this time, the meaning carries a different message than I had attached to it all the times before. I didn’t seek this different meaning, God spoke to me through it.

To read the specifics of what an abuse is, or the particulars of how a Mass is to be conducted does not automatically enable the reader the ability to recognize abuses from adaptations. It just doesn’t. It isn’t black and white even though the pages/words are. Joysong rightfully noted there are hundreds of footnotes corresponding to other documents which may provide exceptions not stated in the source document.

That is why we are allowed to make inquiries. And as with the Bible, Rome is the ultimate authority to intepret their own instructions.

RS was published to point out and cease immediately abuses that they have witnessed ot were reported.

Just a question - How many of those inquiries or reports does anyone think were sent by a Bishop or his staff?

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Yes, one would think that, alas it is so not the case :crying:
otherwise we wouldn’t have so many divorces, married couples using ABC, etc.

Let’s also not forget several of our members on this board who have shared their disappointment to learn, only after having visited these boards, that the guidance their priests offered to them was wrong all along. Evidence that many of these ‘contrary’ teachings aren’t so obvious.

I agree, conditionally. Reading (informing) does not ensure proper understanding, though. That, I sincerely believe, is granted by the Holy Spirit according to His time-table.

I say this because I read/heard scripture all my life, the same passages over and over, when suddenly one time its meaning is different. Same words, but this time, the meaning carries a different message than I had attached to it all the times before. I didn’t seek this different meaning, God spoke to me through it.

To read the specifics of what an abuse is, or the particulars of how a Mass is to be conducted does not automatically enable the reader the ability to recognize abuses from adaptations. It just doesn’t. It isn’t black and white even though the pages/words are. Joysong rightfully noted there are hundreds of footnotes corresponding to other documents which may provide exceptions not stated in the source document.

I agree

 

[buffalo]

Joysong:

Dear Buffalo,

When I told you that we use for Psalm 23, “Shepherd Me O God,” which happens also to be a hymn, you corrected me that it was not allowed. Yet it is the psalm of the day, with all the words, albeit not exactly verbatim as in the bible due to metrical construction, but it is all there. The response for the people is sung in antiphon form as the psalm is sung.

Maybe you did not read my post fully? Keep in mind that one may recite the Divine Office, and one may also chant it in choir. These are not abuses. Each psalm of the Office has an antiphon which begins and ends the psalm, so when we do this at Mass, it is simply a practice that has been in the church for ages.

Carole

I didn’t recognize it and I stand corrected. That obviously would not be the hymn I was speaking of.

Maybe we could start by ruling out the ones that do not make the cut or what consitutes permiited substitutions? Many of the songs in a hymnal have the words of Psalms. Are they then all allowed. How does one make the distinction?

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

That is why we are allowed to make inquiries. And as with the Bible, Rome is the ultimate authority to intepret their own instructions.

RS was published to point out and cease immediately abuses that they have witnessed ot were reported.

Just a question - How many of those inquiries or reports does anyone think were sent by a Bishop or his staff?

Who knows? We never will, that’s for certain.

As I stated before I believe the Holy Spirit selects those He wishes to work through to protect the Church. I also recognize such servants can be anyone - even the uneducated - for the person is doing the will of the Lord, not his own. And, actually, based on history, the Spirit has a solid track record of selecting those least likely to be chosen