Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[paramedicgirl]

Orionthehunter:

I’ve been thinking about this thread and some others like it. Maybe there is more in common here than anyone has been willing to admit.

Buffalo asked this question yesterday: “Can we agree that liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”?” I responded with “I’m not sure that you and I agree what is a liturgical innovation. Describe one and I’ll tell you what I think.”

It has gotten me thinking that nobody here has advocated that an abuse is a good thing and they should be stopped. Also, re-reading the thread there has been virtually no specifics on what abuse/adaptation we are really talking about. However, maybe some of us thought that what was being attacked was a legitimate and authoritative adaptation (allowed) when what was being attacked was a true abuse (not allowed).

Since Buffalo, MRS, and Fix are the most vocal regarding abuses and the rest of us might not know specifically to which they refer, I think it appropriate that they outline something they observe occurring in the Mass and we’ll either agree it is an abuse or explain our perspective on why it is an allowed adaptation.

Not one of the three you asked this of, but I have one example for your consideration. I want to be careful how I word this so there is no chance that others may misinterpret what I say.

At Sunday Mass 2 weeks ago, right at homily time, our priest said he had a pastoral letter from our bishop for us. A woman came up and read the bishop’s letter while the priest sat down. The letter took the place of the homily. Should the priest have read the letter, since it took the place of the homily? Was it proper to have a woman deliver the homily? Should the letter have been read after Mass, and the priest have given a homily?

 

[YinYangMom]

paramedicgirl:

At Sunday Mass 2 weeks ago, right at homily time, our priest said he had a pastoral letter from our bishop for us. A woman came up and read the bishop’s letter while the priest sat down. The letter took the place of the homily. Should the priest have read the letter, since it took the place of the homily? Was it proper to have a woman deliver the homily? Should the letter have been read after Mass, and the priest have given a homily?

What was the letter about?
Did this woman chair a committe which oversees the subject at hand?
Was it such a long letter that it took the entire 15 minutes of homily time to read?

It seems to me the letter from the Bishop took the place of the Homily, but it was not in itself, the homily (thus the woman did not deliver a homily).

I do know that priests are allowed to omit a homily when warranted. Don’t recall the specifics at hand, but I’ll look that up. I know they can omit the homily for a mission appeal, for example, from a visiting minister. He speaks about what his mission does in their country and asks for prayers and support. He doesn’t address the scriptures read at the Mass, so he isn’t giving a homily.

Since the time was used conveying a message from the Bishop to the Congregation I see no abuse, especially if the message was directed specifically to the faithful. Often times it is the Bishop himself, who directs the pastor as to how best to convey his message so it’s quite possible it was the Bishop’s call to use it in lieu of a homily.

I also have a very difficult time viewing ‘occasional’ occurences of events as ‘abuse’. In Buffalo’s parish, since many of his concerns are consistently done, that I’d classify as abuse. Can’t tell if it’s intentional or out of ignorance though.

 

[paramedicgirl]

YinYangMom:

What was the letter about?
Did this woman chair a committe which oversees the subject at hand?
Was it such a long letter that it took the entire 15 minutes of homily time to read?

No, there is no committee and no chair. The letter was just the bishop touching base with his parish that he only visits once a year. I didn’t realize that the homily is timed to 15 minutes. Where did you learn this information?

YinYangMom:

It seems to me the letter from the Bishop took the place of the Homily, but it was not in itself, the homily (thus the woman did not deliver a homily).

This is open to interpretation. Some would say she did deliver the homily, since she was reading it out loud at the time when the priest should have been giving his homily.

YinYangMom:

I do know that priests are allowed to omit a homily when warranted. Don’t recall the specifics at hand, but I’ll look that up. I know they can omit the homily for a mission appeal, for example, from a visiting minister. He speaks about what his mission does in their country and asks for prayers and support. He doesn’t address the scriptures read at the Mass, so he isn’t giving a homily.

Since the time was used conveying a message from the Bishop to the Congregation I see no abuse, especially if the message was directed specifically to the faithful. Often times it is the Bishop himself, who directs the pastor as to how best to convey his message so it’s quite possible it was the Bishop’s call to use it in lieu of a homily.

The issue is the reading of the Bishop’s letter* by a woman * at homily time, not the letter itself. And I am not saying it is an abuse, I am wondering if it is.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Another incident I wonder about is the recent funeral I attended where the priest had the deceased’s brother ( a Protestant pastor) read the Gospel and deliver the homily. The homily was the Protestant pastor’s own thoughts and words, not something written by the priest.

At the close of the Funeral, and before the mass had ended, the family played a song by Mac Davis you may be familiar with:

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
When you’re perfect in every way
I can’t wait to look in the mirror
Cuz I get better lookin each day

To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
But I’m doin’ the best that I can

I used to have a girlfriend
But I guess she just couldn’t compete
With all these love starved women
Who keep clamoring at my feet…

It may be interesting to note, that even though the church was overflowing with people, only 4 people received Communion that day. All the others were either lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics.

Should the priest have allowed the Protestant pastor to read the gospel and deliver the homily? My instincts tell me no. Should he have allowed that trashy song to be played right after Communion? Again, my instincts tell me no.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Has anyone read “Mass Confusion” by James Akin? Now, there is a reliable source. In the section on homilies on page 94, he says it is clear that only priests (or deacons) should give homilies and quotes Canon Law 767 1-2,4:

Among the forms of preaching, the homily is preeminent; it is a part of the liturgy and is reserved to a priest or to a deacon…

Whenever a congregation is present a homily is to be given at all Sunday Masses and at Masses celebrated at Holy Days of Obligation; it cannot be ommitted without a serious (grave) reason…

It is the duty of the pastor or rector of a church to see to it that these prescriptions are concientously observed…

James Akin continues to say that there are limited times a lay person may preach the homlily in a church or oratory, but they may not preach the homily during Mass. On page 94 in his book, he says the Holy See confirmed this in an authentic interpretation of Canon 767.

On page 95: "The Church’s seriousness about the reservation of the homily to priests and deacons was again emphasized in the instruction on collaboration:

The homlily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister-priest or deacon- to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these have responsibilities as “pastoral assistants” or catechists in whatever type of community or group.

This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function that is reserved for them in virtue of having the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason, the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm…

For the same reason, the practice, on some ocasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics is not permitted. Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as training for some future ministry…

In no instance may the homily be entrusted to priests or deacons who have lost the clerical state or who have abandoned the sacred ministry… (ICP, Practical Provisions 3,1,5)

 

[Orionthehunter]

paramedicgirl:

Not one of the three you asked this of, but I have one example for your consideration. I want to be careful how I word this so there is no chance that others may misinterpret what I say.

At Sunday Mass 2 weeks ago, right at homily time, our priest said he had a pastoral letter from our bishop for us. A woman came up and read the bishop’s letter while the priest sat down. The letter took the place of the homily. Should the priest have read the letter, since it took the place of the homily? Was it proper to have a woman deliver the homily? Should the letter have been read after Mass, and the priest have given a homily?

I’m pretty sure that replacing the homily with a message from the Bishop is ok as he is the primary teaching authority in the diocese. On Pro-Life Sunday and occassionally for his annual diocesan support appeal, our parish has listened to a tape from the Bishop but the Priest did give a very short message on the Gospel for the day too.

I question the appropriateness of the lay reader for two reasons.

1. It is improper for the laity to deliver the homily. I have no reference for this but I think there may be very special circumstances for a lay person to deliver the homily at a Mass but I think it requires specific permission from the Bishop or possibly physical problems for the Priest might be one. (obviously, when there is a service due to the absence of a Priest, a lay person can deliver the lesson but that isn’t a Mass). But I see that Paramedic just posted something that says that I’m likely incorrect. If I find something to cloud the debate , I’ll let you know but it looks like I won’t find one which is just fine w/ me. Personally, I think this is a realy good rule/protocol.
2. I think it sent a signal that the Priest didn’t agree w/ the message from the Bishop.

 

[Orionthehunter]

paramedicgirl:

Another incident I wonder about is the recent funeral I attended where the priest had the deceased’s brother ( a Protestant pastor) read the Gospel and deliver the homily. The homily was the Protestant pastor’s own thoughts and words, not something written by the priest.

At the close of the Funeral, and before the mass had ended, the family played a song by Mac Davis you may be familiar with:

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
When you’re perfect in every way
I can’t wait to look in the mirror
Cuz I get better lookin each day

To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
But I’m doin’ the best that I can

I used to have a girlfriend
But I guess she just couldn’t compete
With all these love starved women
Who keep clamoring at my feet…

It may be interesting to note, that even though the church was overflowing with people, only 4 people received Communion that day. All the others were either lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics.

Should the priest have allowed the Protestant pastor to read the gospel and deliver the homily? My instincts tell me no. Should he have allowed that trashy song to be played right after Communion? Again, my instincts tell me no.

My instincts are no too. I think the proper procedure would have been to allow the Pastor to read the Epistle/OT reading(s) and possibly deliver a Eulogy after the Funeral Mass had ended. The practice in our parish is that after Mass has ended, a representative of the family can deliver a Eulogy.

Regarding the song, I don’t know if it necessarily an abuse as there may be significant flexibilility to honor requests of hte family. However, I am very confident that poor judgment was exercised. If it were my pastor, I think he might have either required a different song, told them to play it after Mass had ended, or declined to do the funeral with a Mass if he did anything at all.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

Buffalo:

1. Do they stand up in front of the altar below the sanctuary or behind the altar? I do recall that at one of my daughters 1st Communion the Pastor invited the 1st communicants to come up on the steps up to the Sanctuary where he sat down with them and gave the Homily specifically to the children about the magnitude of the Eucharist. By the way, he is now a Bishop for a missionary diocese and was our diocesan Canon Lawyer. I’d be hard pressed to believe he committed an abuse as he is pretty anal (I say that with total respect and admiration for him!)
2. This is done during what period of the Mass? In lieu of the homily?

At Offertory the parents and children are invited to approach the Altar. The stand behind the Altar facing the people, through the Consecration, they receive Communion behind the Altar, then they return to there seats. When you do your research on Children’s Liturgy note the requirments as far as ratio of children to adults. I believe the wording is - A Mass predominantly attended by Children…

 

[buffalo]

Joysong:

Dear Buffalo,

Can I assume that the congregation is able to respond to his “songs?” Or do you all sing it through together in entirety.

In fairness to the person, are you aware that there are 150 psalms? Some are so long that they are not even used in fullness when it is printed in the sacramentary - but there are only portions of a psalm.

Are you able to positively determine from your knowledge of all 150 psalms that the words of the song he chooses are NOT a psalm? That they are NOT appropriate for a response to the reading?

Our choir hymnal has all of the psalms listed in the index with a correlating hymn that contains its words. Do you know that this person is not liturgically correct in picking one of them, even though it is on guitar? {I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.) It takes someone saying the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours) four full weeks to go through all of the psalms, and that is only if they say the full psalter all day. So it is quite possible to miss the connection of the hymn unless you have a trained ear for psalms.

If it bothers you, can you attend a mass without guitar accompaniment?

Buffalo, have you thought about what the Mass proper is? Somebody posted on the forum that a soldier in the field of battle may not be able to hear the Liturgy of the Word, but only the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and still have it be a valid mass. If the Psalm, which is part of the Liturgy of the Word, is replaced with a hymn that does not contain the psalm, whose responsibility is it?

Will God hold you accountable if you sing what the guitarist selects? Is it really all that grave of an abuse to worry yourself about it? Do you honestly ask the guitarist each week if (s)he picked a song with the proper psalm in it? I pray that you give your spirit rest and not concern yourself about things that are not obvious to your ordinary ability to discern.

By the way, the above words are in a psalm: #131, “O Lord, my heart is not proud, nor are my eyes haughty; I busy not myself with great things, nor with things beyond my strength. Nay rather, I have stilled and quieted my soul like a weaned child. Like a weaned child on its mother’s lap, so is my soul within me.”

And there is a hymn that uses these words, rather popular, in fact: Like a Child Rests. Would anyone recognize it as a psalm?

Peace,
Carole

I didn’t make this a priority, but I did list it.

Bottom line - this kind of thing is a slippery slope. When mixed in with the other stated abuses one loses confidence as to the legitimacy of this particular one. It is all in context. The faithful suffer as a result. Why should we suffer?

 

[buffalo]

paramedicgirl:

Another incident I wonder about is the recent funeral I attended where the priest had the deceased’s brother ( a Protestant pastor) read the Gospel and deliver the homily. The homily was the Protestant pastor’s own thoughts and words, not something written by the priest.

At the close of the Funeral, and before the mass had ended, the family played a song by Mac Davis you may be familiar with:

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
When you’re perfect in every way
I can’t wait to look in the mirror
Cuz I get better lookin each day

To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
But I’m doin’ the best that I can

I used to have a girlfriend
But I guess she just couldn’t compete
With all these love starved women
Who keep clamoring at my feet…

It may be interesting to note, that even though the church was overflowing with people, only 4 people received Communion that day. All the others were either lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics.

Should the priest have allowed the Protestant pastor to read the gospel and deliver the homily? My instincts tell me no. Should he have allowed that trashy song to be played right after Communion? Again, my instincts tell me no.

Nope! A Protestant cannot participate in the Mass as you describe.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I’m pretty sure that replacing the homily with a message from the Bishop is ok as he is the primary teaching authority in the diocese. On Pro-Life Sunday and occassionally for his annual diocesan support appeal, our parish has listened to a tape from the Bishop but the Priest did give a very short message on the Gospel for the day too.

I question the appropriateness of the lay reader for two reasons.

1. It is improper for the laity to deliver the homily. I have no reference for this but I think there may be very special circumstances for a lay person to deliver the homily at a Mass but I think it requires specific permission from the Bishop or possibly physical problems for the Priest might be one. (obviously, when there is a service due to the absence of a Priest, a lay person can deliver the lesson but that isn’t a Mass). But I see that Paramedic just posted something that says that I’m likely incorrect. If I find something to cloud the debate , I’ll let you know but it looks like I won’t find one which is just fine w/ me. Personally, I think this is a realy good rule/protocol.
2. I think it sent a signal that the Priest didn’t agree w/ the message from the Bishop.

If the Priests intent is to simply involve the laity, then this would be an abuse.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

At Offertory the parents and children are invited to approach the Altar. The stand behind the Altar facing the people, through the Consecration, they receive Communion behind the Altar, then they return to there seats. When you do your research on Children’s Liturgy note the requirments as far as ratio of children to adults. I believe the wording is - A Mass predominantly attended by Children…

Everything I’ve ever read would call this an abuse. My Pastor is very clear that nobody but the readers, deacons, Priest or servers are to enter the sanctuary except for Post-Communion when the EMHC’s might assist cleaning the Eucharist utensils (I know this isn’t the right wording) at the little table that holds the chalices, etc. for communion.

Regarding a children Mass, I suspect that it is probably defined as "primarily intended for children (and possibly teens). For example, a special 1st Communion Mass outside of the regular schedule (and possibly even within the schedule) could have a huge adult portion of the congregation as compared to the children but it makes little sense to me that raw numbers would decide the type of Mass.

 

[YinYangMom]

paramedicgirl:

I didn’t realize that the homily is timed to 15 minutes. Where did you learn this information?

It isn’t. It’s been my experience all these years that masses run around 50 minutes and the Eucharistic Prayer usually begins around 25 minutes into the service which generally allows 10-15 minutes for a homily.

This is open to interpretation. Some would say she did deliver the homily, since she was reading it out loud at the time when the priest should have been giving his homily.

Actually it’s a matter of definition. A homily specifically addresses the readings and how it applies to the congregation. If the message doesn’t tie the readings to daily living then it isn’t a homily, it’s an address or speech.

The issue is the reading of the Bishop’s letter* by a woman *at homily time, not the letter itself. And I am not saying it is an abuse, I am wondering if it is.

Since it wasn’t a homily, male or female addressing the congregation during that section of the mass does not, in and of itself, qualify it as an abuse.

I’m more concerned about leaving the homily out all together and why it was allowed, especially for a Sunday service. But it may depend upon the content of the Bishop’s letter…since it was addressed from him to the congregation that may have been enough to warrant its reading in that part of the mass. Haven’t seen anything in writing yet though to substantiate that.

 

[YinYangMom]

paramedicgirl:

Another incident I wonder about is the recent funeral I attended where the priest had the deceased’s brother ( a Protestant pastor) read the Gospel and deliver the homily. The homily was the Protestant pastor’s own thoughts and words, not something written by the priest.

At the close of the Funeral, and before the mass had ended, the family played a song by Mac Davis you may be familiar with:

Should the priest have allowed the Protestant pastor to read the gospel and deliver the homily? My instincts tell me no. Should he have allowed that trashy song to be played right after Communion? Again, my instincts tell me no.

Funeral Masses have their own book beyond the GIRM…I’d have to look up the specifics.

Still, as a one-time event, it’s more likely it would have been a mistake on the priest’s part, not an abuse. Again, for me, abuses are consistently done over time as opposed to a one or two time thing.

 

[YinYangMom]

2) I think it sent a signal that the Priest didn’t agree w/ the message from the Bishop.

Hmmm…now that’s interesting.

I’m still bothered that the priest didn’t give a homily first, and then have the letter read. That seems clearly wrong.

If, indeed, the bishop’s letter was a teaching letter then all the more reason for the priest to have done the reading of it, not have it delegated to a lay person. That too seems clearly wrong.

Paramedicgirl, can you ask him why he didn’t read the bishop’s letter himself? It would be really interesting to hear his response.

You know, the pastor of your parish is responsible for proper instruction to his flock. As a member you should be able to ask him the question about the bishop’s letter and the funeral without appearing as if you’re stepping out of bounds. You’d just approach him in a ‘learning’ mode basically saying “Father, in learning more about the mass I was confused about a couple of things which occured recently, can you explain the reasons behind them for me please?” If he takes offense, that’s his problem, really. He is obliged to answer your questions nonetheless. If he is pleased to have the opportunity to help you then that’s a great thing.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

The faithful suffer as a result. Why should we suffer?

But do they really?
It seems to me the faithful who suffer are those few who actually read up on all this stuff and therefore recognize abuses are taking place.

All in all, the masses are still valid, the Eucharist received by the faithful is the Real Presence, the readings are read, songs which inspire reflection on the readings are sung, so the overall experience of the unknowing faithful is complete.

I do agree your parish is suffering from improper guidance and am more concerned with the type of advice your pastor doles out to people who come to seek counsel.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

But do they really?
.

If the abuses lead the flock into thinking that the Mass is merely entertainment and horizontal as well as optional then they do suffer. Their faith suffers in that they forget the reason for Mass - worship to God and not to each other. This is very fundamental.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

If the abuses lead the flock into thinking that the Mass is merely entertainment and horizontal as well as optional then they do suffer. Their faith suffers in that they forget the reason for Mass - worship to God and not to each other. This is very fundamental.

Is that what the majority of your parishioners think, though?
Are you seeing that they are not appreciating the sacrifice of the Mass?
Are they leaving Mass feeling abandoned, lost, worried or joyful, at peace and rejuvenated in the Lord?

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Is that what the majority of your parishioners think, though?
Are you seeing that they are not appreciating the sacrifice of the Mass?
Are they leaving Mass feeling abandoned, lost, worried or joyful, at peace and rejuvenated in the Lord?

One can leave a liturgy feeling happy because of horizontal worship alone.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

If the abuses lead the flock into thinking that the Mass is merely entertainment and horizontal as well as optional then they do suffer. Their faith suffers in that they forget the reason for Mass - worship to God and not to each other. This is very fundamental.

Mass is for us to worship and praise God and to experience Christ in the Priest, in each other when we see Christ in our other worshippers and we make ourselves available to the Priest, in the Living Word and preeminently in the Eucharist. You will note that experience Christ in the Priest and in each other is horizontal. Mass is not exclusively vertical.

I think what Ying is getting at is too little benefit and trust is attributed the Graces that pour down on us in a Mass and via the four ways we experience Christ as described above. Even a bad Mass w/ the Eucharist is better than anything I can every do.