Liturgical Abuses vs Anger - Which is the greater sin?

[Quaere_Verum]

When I see liturgical abuses it makes me angry and steals my peace during Mass. I decided a while back that if the abuses are not severe affecting the integrity of the Mass that I would try to pray for change, speak up if necessary, remember that the majority of people commiting the abuses are not intending to undermine the Church, and try to remain at peace during Mass. After all which would Satan find more victory in - a minor abuse (maybe not the best word; maybe innovation is a better word) or my extreme anger pulling me away from focusing on Our Lord’s great sacrifice?

Any thoughts?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Anger in and of itself is not sinful - it is an emotion. What is important is what your response to that emotion is. It can be either constructive or destructive. We must always strive to constructively respond to anger (and other emotions).

 

[James0235]

When I see liturgical abuses it makes me angry and steals my peace during Mass. I decided a while back that if the abuses are not severe affecting the integrity of the Mass that I would try to pray for change, speak up if necessary, remember that the majority of people commiting the abuses are not intending to undermine the Church, and try to remain at peace during Mass. After all which would Satan find more victory in - a minor abuse (maybe not the best word; maybe innovation is a better word) or my extreme anger pulling me away from focusing on Our Lord’s great sacrifice?

Any thoughts?

Liturgical Abuse is a grave sin. If there is full knowledge and full intent as well then it is a mortal sin.

The problem is that even though it is a grave sin (possibly a mortal sin) on the part of the priest it does not only affect the priest but everyone at the Mass.

For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.
Redemptionis Sacramentum 6

For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.
Redemptionis Sacramentum 10

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Pope Benedict’s Explanatory Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum

So, in my opinion, any anger felt because of Liturgical Abuses in most likely righteous anger. You are not the one doing any wrong or committing any sin when you get angry at these things.

James

 

[scylla]

Jesus showed emotion when he encountered abuse in the temple, He never sinned but did show emotion which is appropriate in certain situations. It is right to be disturbed or angry when people disrespect God, it is wrong to dwell on it anlose charity. You can be angry at abuse but to lose charity is where you can lead to sin.

This is why I left the Mass at religious congress this year, rather than going down into the arena to stop the dancing or to get uncharitable, I stated what the abuse was to the people around me and told them I would not participate. I left and now am in the hotel room. I will leave early and go to Mass where it is done with respect to God.

God Bless
Scylla

The short answer, liturgical abuse is an insult to God, anger is just an emotion which can lead to sin, even joy can lead to sin. Get caught up in your emotions you can lead to sin but our emotions are not sinful and do not compare at all to insulting God.

 

[dmelosi]

When I see liturgical abuses it makes me angry and steals my peace during Mass. I decided a while back that if the abuses are not severe affecting the integrity of the Mass that I would try to pray for change, speak up if necessary, remember that the majority of people commiting the abuses are not intending to undermine the Church, and try to remain at peace during Mass. After all which would Satan find more victory in - a minor abuse (maybe not the best word; maybe innovation is a better word) or my extreme anger pulling me away from focusing on Our Lord’s great sacrifice?

Any thoughts?

Try picturing yourself back in Jesus day, of all the distractions the people had as he tried to spread His word.

I am not suggesting you ignore the abuses, but don’t let it take away the from mass.

 

[childofmary1143]

Hello,

Anger in and of itself is not sinful - it is an emotion. What is important is what your response to that emotion is. It can be either constructive or destructive. We must always strive to constructively respond to anger (and other emotions).

Anger is sinful. It is one of the 7 Deadly sins. However how one defines certain emotions is where it gets tricky. Justice is a virtue that can be criticized as being anger when it isn’t. E.g. Jesus driving out the money changers in the temple. I am sure he got violent even. However that was justified because the situation warranted it.

Regarding liturgical abuse, I almost feel paralyzed because if you say something, they will tell you that you are wrong. In some situations speaking up will do no good but if you really feel compelled to speak, then do so.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Anger is sinful. It is one of the 7 Deadly sins. However how one defines certain emotions is where it gets tricky. Justice is a virtue that can be criticized as being anger when it isn’t. E.g. Jesus driving out the money changers in the temple. I am sure he got violent even. However that was justified because the situation warranted it.

Regarding liturgical abuse, I almost feel paralyzed because if you say something, they will tell you that you are wrong. In some situations speaking up will do no good but if you really feel compelled to speak, then do so.

I agree, it depends on the definition. I meant the definition of anger as a pure emotion. What many call anger - and what the Church even usually means - is that destructive response to the emotion of anger.

Like I said, I defined in my post anger as an emotion and noted that the response can either be constructive or destructive. It is sinful when the response is destructive. Your example of Jesus in the Temple is an example of a constructive response.

What is anger, the emotion? It is a strong feeling of displeasure - Webster definition.

In the context of this thread, suppose someone is angered by a liturgical abuse. They are feeling displeasure over the Priest’s errors (be they out of ignorance or intentionally sinful). A constructive response might be to take the initiative to talk with Father about it and if need be to go to the Bishop or even Rome depending on how the situation evolves. Father might be saddened to hear that he is not doing things properly as he never meant to and was acting out of ignorance. He will now do things proper. In fact he charges you to start a liturgical committee to study the documents and report on how the Parish is or isn’t in conformity for them. This could usher in true reform for the Parish and make it a beacon of light. Constructive.

The same abuse could anger someone and they go home steaming. They yell at their spouse for eating the last apple and punish their kids by grounding and no dinner for doing their homework with a pen instead of a pencil. They tell of their boss and get fired and let the anger eat them up on the inside. They start drinking heavily and doing drugs. They get divorced and start stealing to pay for their ‘habits’. They start picking bar fights and in one kills a man and goes to prison. Maybe a little extreme, but I have heard stories that are very similar (maybe the original angering stimulus is different). Destructive.

 

[mlchance]

A point that has been missed so far: Jesus equates anger against a brother with murder.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Brendan]

Anger is sinful. It is one of the 7 Deadly sins.

No it’s not. You are confusing it with ‘Wrath’. Wrath is vengance with anger. Catholics do not seek Vengence, only Justice

St. Thomas Aquinas defined Anger as “Energy directed towards injustice, real or percieved”

When an injustice occurs, Anger is the appropriate resonse.

It is to be tempered by Prudence, which is the ability to percive the Truth in a situation and act on it. Thus the expression of Anger against true unjustice is actually a Virtue, Justice.

Given that the Faithful have a right to have the Mass celebrated according to the Guidlines published by the Church, the denial of that right IS an injustice.

So anger is appropriate, the expression of that anger should be prudent.

 

[porthos11]

A point that has been missed so far: Jesus equates anger against a brother with murder.

– Mark L. Chance.

No he does not. He says that one who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Any judgment can always be in favor or against an accused. The anger should not be towards the person himself. This refers to grudges.

However, Jesus himself was angry with the deeds that were committed in the Temple, so we can’t accuse him of violating his own advice.

That’s why St. Paul warns: “Be angry, but do not sin. Do not let the sun go down on your wrath.”

Anger itself, like any other emotion, is amoral: it is neither right nor wrong. It becomes sinful when it is used as an occasion of hate towards a person or if it is acted on in a manner that causes that person harm or abuse.

 

[Walking_Home]

A point that has been missed so far: Jesus equates anger against a brother with murder.

– Mark L. Chance.

---

So then —did our Lord Christ commit some type of murder when He used a whip to drive the money changers out of the temple.

 

[mlchance]

No he does not. He says that one who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Precisely, and in the same context as noting that one commits murder will be subject to judgment. “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Walking_Home]

The principle of righteous vs. unrighteous anger.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

Righteous versus Unrighteous Anger (2302-3)

Anger is a desire for revenge. Anger is the passion (emotion) by which a man reacts to evil, real or apparent, and seeks vindication of his rights, that is, justice. By itself the passion is neither moral or immoral, but becomes so by reason or its being ordered or disordered - that is, reasonable according to the circumstances. An ordered anger is directed to a legitimate object, and, with an appropriate degree of vehemence. An inordinate anger is directed either to an illegitimate object, or, with an unreasonable vehemence. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, vice may be by defect, as well as excess. So, the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility.

Consider the just anger of the Lord to the presence in the Temple of the money-changers and the action He took (John 2:13-17). Provoked by this offense against His Father, Jesus formed whips and drove them from the Temple. Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil.

 

[childofmary1143]

No it’s not. You are confusing it with ‘Wrath’. Wrath is vengance with anger. Catholics do not seek Vengence, only Justice

St. Thomas Aquinas defined Anger as “Energy directed towards injustice, real or percieved”

When an injustice occurs, Anger is the appropriate resonse.

It is to be tempered by Prudence, which is the ability to percive the Truth in a situation and act on it. Thus the expression of Anger against true unjustice is actually a Virtue, Justice.

Given that the Faithful have a right to have the Mass celebrated according to the Guidlines published by the Church, the denial of that right IS an injustice.

So anger is appropriate, the expression of that anger should be prudent.

Wrath is a term that is used in some publications where Anger used to exist but I learnt that Anger is one of the 7 deadly sins in the Baltimore Catechism.

Here is a link to a parish in Florida which shows Anger as one of the 7 Deadly sins:

mostholyname.org/beliefs.html#Capital%20Sins:

 

[ac_claire]

When I see liturgical abuses it makes me angry and steals my peace during Mass. I decided a while back that if the abuses are not severe affecting the integrity of the Mass that I would try to pray for change, speak up if necessary, remember that the majority of people commiting the abuses are not intending to undermine the Church, and try to remain at peace during Mass. After all which would Satan find more victory in - a minor abuse (maybe not the best word; maybe innovation is a better word) or my extreme anger pulling me away from focusing on Our Lord’s great sacrifice?

It depends; need more info. If it’s an actual liturgical abuse and the priest knows it, then you are right to feel angry. Or frustrated. I think that shows you understand what mass is all about and why the Church bothers to define othopraxis in liturgy.

But if it’s something that maybe just rubs you the wrong way or you think it’s tacky, for example, but isn’t actual abuse…In that case, your anger wouldn’t be justified, and maybe you’d need to pray for serenity.

I only make the distinction because you mentioned “severe” vs. “minor” abuses. What is happening that is distressing you? If it is an abuse, is there anything you can do or have tried to do to address it?

Either way, I sympathize with what you wrote. I know that you’re in a difficult position.

 

[Brendan]

Wrath is a term that is used in some publications where Anger used to exist but I learnt that Anger is one of the 7 deadly sins in the Baltimore Catechism.

Here is a link to a parish in Florida which shows Anger as one of the 7 Deadly sins:

mostholyname.org/beliefs.html#Capital%20Sins:

That’s why Aquinas made the distinction. Anger can be just, Wrath (as vengence) is not.

Here is the Catholic Encylopedia on the subject.

newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm

These are the two Aspects that Aquinas differentiated.

It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive.

• This Aquinas described as Wrath and sinful and contrary to Justice.

When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal.

• This is what Aquinas defined as Anger, and a promoter of Justice, a virtue.

And thus the critical distinction. Anger cannot be both sinful and ‘praiseworthy’, it must be seperated further to denote when it promotes Virtue, and when it is sinful.

What the OP is experiencing can be either. If the anger is directed at correcting the abuse and obtaining Justice (reflected in respect for the faithful’s right to have an abuse free Mass), it is praiseworthy. If it towards vengence, seeking to punish the priest unjustly, then it is sinful.

 

[NetNuncio]

I’m afraid I am going to have to disagree with translations that declare Anger one of the seven deadly sins.

The sin’s name in Latin is ira, where we get the word ire. The better translation for the word is, indeed, our word wrath, which tends to assume a thirst for vengeance and having uncontrolled feelings. Anger, however, can be a righteous thing, as has been mentioned in Christ’s cleansing of the temple.

Latin, however, uses the word ira for both our word ANGER and our word WRATH.

My two cents.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

When I see liturgical abuses it makes me angry and steals my peace during Mass. I decided a while back that if the abuses are not severe affecting the integrity of the Mass that I would try to pray for change, speak up if necessary, remember that the majority of people commiting the abuses are not intending to undermine the Church, and try to remain at peace during Mass. After all which would Satan find more victory in - a minor abuse (maybe not the best word; maybe innovation is a better word) or my extreme anger pulling me away from focusing on Our Lord’s great sacrifice?

Any thoughts?

I like your attitude.

I once left a Mass annoyed with some things and muttered to myself, “I hate that Mass!” Then, I felt bad, like I’d uttered blasphemy. Now, if someone is really doing extreme things - clowns dancing around the altar and such - then I might pitch a bit of a fit. But, I’m not going to get bent out of shape just because the priest had all the little children come up to stand around the altar for the Lord’s Prayer and the Peace at Mass today. It bugged me a little, but I am not going to let that become my problem, ya know?

 

[Walking_Home]

Becoming apathetic to what some may see as minor abuses–more likely will also breed apathy to the greater ones.

 

[Phemie]

Anger is sinful. It is one of the 7 Deadly sins. However how one defines certain emotions is where it gets tricky. Justice is a virtue that can be criticized as being anger when it isn’t. E.g. Jesus driving out the money changers in the temple. I am sure he got violent even. However that was justified because the situation warranted it.

Regarding liturgical abuse, I almost feel paralyzed because if you say something, they will tell you that you are wrong. In some situations speaking up will do no good but if you really feel compelled to speak, then do so.

It seems that every time I speak out the pastor finds a way to work the pharisees and rules into his next sermon.