Luturgical abuses?

[JReducation]

My parish is run by Redemptorists who live in the rectory beside the church

The Redemptorists are exempt religious. Only the superior has the right to decide their schedule and their availability. Even the bishop cannot intervene there. Sending two priests to another parish may appear to be good for the Church, but not for the community. Whatever is not good for the religious community, in the end, it’s not good for the Church. The Church depends the spiritual strength of the religious congregation.

This happened too often from Vatican I up to the 1970s. It decimated religious communities when they were commanded to recover the life of their founders. The men got so used to living like priests that when they were brought back into larger communities to live as religious, many could not transition. Some became bitter and left. Others became bitter and stayed, but made life impossible for their confreres, which pushed them out the door.

Trust me, the last thing you want to do is go back to that model where regular priests live as priests and not as a religious community. Stay out of their way. If they’re living as Redemptorists should live, that’s their primary contribution to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choliks]

My understanding is that sign language is an approved vernacular, perhaps there are others to cover other national languages as well. I don’t see this as a problem.

the key word here is “seemed.” I know sign language when I see one. I really wouldn’t call it an abuse… just odd. Again, I wouldn’t question it out of obedience.

 

[JReducation]

My understanding is that sign language is an approved vernacular, perhaps there are others to cover other national languages as well. I don’t see this as a problem.

When you have hearing impaired in your congregation, you may use Sign. Sign has been legally recognized as real language. In the USA we use ASL. There is also another form of sign language, but I don’t know it’s name. If the celebrant knows Sign, he may use it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[YoungTradCath]

When you have hearing impaired in your congregation, you may use Sign. Sign has been legally recognized as real language. In the USA we use ASL. There is also another form of sign language, but I don’t know it’s name. If the celebrant knows Sign, he may use it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Lolol, I bet it would be hard to try to report a priest for “not following the Missal” to a bishop.

 

[JReducation]

Lolol, I bet it would be hard to try to report a priest for “not following the Missal” to a bishop.

I dare anyone to try.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

I have a few, but most date backa few years before the most recent GIRM revision:

1. Use fired clay cups for distribution of the Precious Blood. Any imperfection in the finish results in the cup itself soaking up the liquid. Not cool.
2. Liturgical dancers doing a ‘halftime show’ after the gospel. Also squelched after the GIRM, thanks be to God. Somebody must still be agitating for it though because they still use them on major Holy Days as part of the entrance procession and recessional.
3. Our church has a beautifully designed and placed area suitable for a tabernacle beneath the huge crucifix that hangs from the ceiling. Architecturally, it is obviously meant for it. For some unknown reason, the tabernacle is instead pushed to a far back corner of the church behind a massive pillar and not visible from any pew or kneeler. Granted, we also have a very nice Eucharistic Chapel, but the location of the tabernacle in the main church is architecturally insulting to the Blessed Sacrament.
4. After the GIRM was published, the EMHCs were obediently told to refrain from coming forward until the proper time and instructed to stay off the altar platform itself. In the last year, they’ve crept right back up.

In the end, these aren’t worth going to war over, but I DO wish people would care enough and be humble enough to participate in mass the way we are supposed to instead of presuming to improve things.

 

[thistle]

I have a few, but most date backa few years before the most recent GIRM revision:

1. Use fired clay cups for distribution of the Precious Blood. Any imperfection in the finish results in the cup itself soaking up the liquid. Not cool.
2. Liturgical dancers doing a ‘halftime show’ after the gospel. Also squelched after the GIRM, thanks be to God. Somebody must still be agitating for it though because they still use them on major Holy Days as part of the entrance procession and recessional.
3. Our church has a beautifully designed and placed area suitable for a tabernacle beneath the huge crucifix that hangs from the ceiling. Architecturally, it is obviously meant for it. For some unknown reason, the tabernacle is instead pushed to a far back corner of the church behind a massive pillar and not visible from any pew or kneeler. Granted, we also have a very nice Eucharistic Chapel, but the location of the tabernacle in the main church is architecturally insulting to the Blessed Sacrament.
4. After the GIRM was published, the EMHCs were obediently told to refrain from coming forward until the proper time and instructed to stay off the altar platform itself. In the last year, they’ve crept right back up.

In the end, these aren’t worth going to war over, but I DO wish people would care enough and be humble enough to participate in mass the way we are supposed to instead of presuming to improve things.

When you say “altar platform” what precisely do you mean?

 

[JReducation]

I have a few, but most date backa few years before the most recent GIRM revision:

1. Use fired clay cups for distribution of the Precious Blood. Any imperfection in the finish results in the cup itself soaking up the liquid. Not cool.
2. Liturgical dancers doing a ‘halftime show’ after the gospel. Also squelched after the GIRM, thanks be to God. Somebody must still be agitating for it though because they still use them on major Holy Days as part of the entrance procession and recessional.
3. Our church has a beautifully designed and placed area suitable for a tabernacle beneath the huge crucifix that hangs from the ceiling. Architecturally, it is obviously meant for it. For some unknown reason, the tabernacle is instead pushed to a far back corner of the church behind a massive pillar and not visible from any pew or kneeler. Granted, we also have a very nice Eucharistic Chapel, but the location of the tabernacle in the main church is architecturally insulting to the Blessed Sacrament.
4. After the GIRM was published, the EMHCs were obediently told to refrain from coming forward until the proper time and instructed to stay off the altar platform itself. In the last year, they’ve crept right back up.

In the end, these aren’t worth going to war over, but I DO wish people would care enough and be humble enough to participate in mass the way we are supposed to instead of presuming to improve things.

Unfortunately, some architects were not paying attention to the theology of the liturgy. I have seen some very beautiful modern churches that serve their function very well and are actually quite simple.

Then I have seen some that are very elaborate and yet, they seem like a waste of money, because they are not practical.

Last year I attended Good Friday liturgy at a Church that is huge. I mean huge. The problem was that I couldn’t feel comfortable in it. I tried to think, why not.

It finally dawned on me. There was so much empty space that the Church lacked a sense of coziness. Whereas our little chapel, which is really a spare bedroom into which we barely fit, gives you a warm glow inside.

I’m not architect. But my take is that if you’re going to build big, you must fill the space with more than just people. That’s what I like about the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception and the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament. They are huge open spaces, but there is something to look at, if nothing else, there are the variations in colors in the marble and something in the front that pops out. A crucifix that’s the same color and material as the rest of the church does not pop out, nor does an altar of the same. There has to be something that pulls you in. Otherwise, you’re lost in these big spaces that are barren.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

When you say “altar platform” what precisely do you mean?

The floor under the pews slopes downwards towards the altar. But the altar itself is on a raised platform (probably a technical word for it somewhere) several steps up from the floor level. Originally after the GIRM came out, my understanding was that the EMHCs were supposed to stay at the bottom of the stairs and the priest would bring them what they needed from the altar. At first they did, but it has returned to EMHCs walking up the steps, receving communion there and taking the chalices there before going to their stations.

As I said, not worth going to war over, but if there are norms it would be nice if people bothered to learn them and conform to them.

 

[mfrances]

The floor under the pews slopes downwards towards the altar. But the altar itself is on a raised platform (probably a technical word for it somewhere) several steps up from the floor level. Originally after the GIRM came out, my understanding was that the EMHCs were supposed to stay at the bottom of the stairs and the priest would bring them what they needed from the altar. At first they did, but it has returned to EMHCs walking up the steps, receving communion there and taking the chalices there before going to their stations.

As I said, not worth going to war over, but if there are norms it would be nice if people bothered to learn them and conform to them.

Same thing has happened here. They were corrected at some point and stayed below the elevated platform, but nowadays they are back up there.

 

[paperwight66]

Same thing has happened here. They were corrected at some point and stayed below the elevated platform, but nowadays they are back up there.

Hmm, my interpretation of that would be that they tried it the other way, and it didn’t work.
For instance, perhaps the priest wasn’t happy about carrying the chalices down the steps.

You know, EMHCs really aren’t the rebels they are assumed to be. We are told what to do by the clergy and we do it, then sometimes get the blame, or base motives assigned to us. If the EMHCs are going up on to the platform unlawfully, it would have been noticed by the clergy, don’t you think? In other words, it’s more likely to be something approved by the clergy than an act of defiance by the EMHCs.

 

[Big_Feet]

You know, EMHCs really aren’t the rebels they are assumed to be. We are told what to do by the clergy and we do it, then sometimes get the blame, or base motives assigned to us. If the EMHCs are going up on to the platform unlawfully, it would have been noticed by the clergy, don’t you think? In other words, it’s more likely to be something approved by the clergy than an act of defiance by the EMHCs.

I am an EMHC, and in my parish, the above is absolutely correct. We are ONLY doing as instructed by our clergy (pastor/priest and deacons). We only approach/enter the sanctuary after Father has received the Body and Blood of Christ, just in time to receive it ourselves, and I know that I never go up to receive either as a EMHC or as a member of the congregation with ANY sense of entitlement. As an EMHC, it is entirely a sacred act and responsibility that I am being asked by my pastor to perform.

 

[thistle]

The floor under the pews slopes downwards towards the altar. But the altar itself is on a raised platform (probably a technical word for it somewhere) several steps up from the floor level. Originally after the GIRM came out, my understanding was that the EMHCs were supposed to stay at the bottom of the stairs and the priest would bring them what they needed from the altar. At first they did, but it has returned to EMHCs walking up the steps, receving communion there and taking the chalices there before going to their stations.

As I said, not worth going to war over, but if there are norms it would be nice if people bothered to learn them and conform to them.

In our parish Church the sanctuary area floor is all level so the altar is not raised above the floor on a platform but that doesn’t matter because the EMHC’s remain outside the sanctuary until after the priest has received Communion and he beckons them to come up.
However, as far as I know it is permissable for EMHC’s to stand in the sanctuary but at the side until the priest has received because the GIRM only states they must not approach the altar and doesn’t say they must stay outside the sanctuary.

 

[JReducation]

In our parish Church the sanctuary area floor is all level so the altar is not raised above the floor on a platform but that doesn’t matter because the EMHC’s remain outside the sanctuary until after the priest has received Communion and he beckons them to come up.
However, as far as I know it is permissable for EMHC’s to stand in the sanctuary but at the side until the priest has received because the GIRM only states they must not approach the altar and doesn’t say they must stay outside the sanctuary.

I have to ask my superior again. I think you’re not supposed to take the ciboria from the altar. I don’t think that it’s that you’re not supposed to approach the altar. I know that all of our brothers distribute communion, but only two out of 12 are priests. We all walk right up to the altar. Whichever brother is celebrating the mass, hands you the ciboria, after giving you Holy Commuion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thistle]

I have to ask my superior again. I think you’re not supposed to take the ciboria from the altar. I don’t think that it’s that you’re not supposed to approach the altar. I know that all of our brothers distribute communion, but only two out of 12 are priests. We all walk right up to the altar. Whichever brother is celebrating the mass, hands you the ciboria, after giving you Holy Commuion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks. I would be interested to hear what is allowed or not.
I know in our parish Church the EMHC’s must wait outside the Sanctuary until the priest has received Communion and then he beckons them up.
However, I have been to many Churches where the EMHC’s stand in but at the side of the Sanctuary and then once he has received he beckons them forward.
Maybe its simply up to the priest? I don’t know.

 

[choliks]

Thanks. I would be interested to hear what is allowed or not.
I know in our parish Church the EMHC’s must wait outside the Sanctuary until the priest has received Communion and then he beckons them up.
However, I have been to many Churches where the EMHC’s stand in but at the side of the Sanctuary and then once he has received he beckons them forward.
Maybe its simply up to the priest? I don’t know.

Yup. Same here. And the priest hands the ciboria to EMHCs after giving them communion.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I read an article on liturgical absues from ourladyswarriors.com yesterday.

According to them, there are only four abuses that invalidate the Mass:

1. If the person consecrating the Host is not a male, legitimately ordained priest - this includes when the lay congregation “co-consecrates” the Eucharist with the priest,
2. If the priests uses anything but unleavened wheat bread or grape wine (or low-gluten bread and mustum for wheat allergies and alcoholism respectively),
3. If the priest does not say the words “This is my Body…This is my Blood…Do this in memory of me”, and therefore does not say the words Christ did,
4. This surprised me: If the priest does not INTEND to turn the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood, it does not become Christ’s Body and Blood.

These are the only liturgical abuses that invalidate a Mass. The rest are illegal, but do not put in jeopardy your right to the consecrated Host. They do, however, give less reverence to the Mass than is right and proper.

Among these illegal but valid abuses are: dancing during Mass, not giving a Homily after the Sunday Gospel reading, holding hands during the Our Father, changing the language of the Mass by adding, changing, or removing words (including gender neutral words), prohibiting the reception of the Lord on the tongue, on bended knee, or genuflecting; anyone taking the Communion for themselves other than the priest; and a number of other things.

Remember, these make light of Our Lord’s sacrifice, and shallow the reverence of the Mass. BUT they do not invalidate it.

Source: ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

 

[JReducation]

I read an article on liturgical absues from ourladyswarriors.com yesterday.

According to them, there are only four abuses that invalidate the Mass:

1. If the person consecrating the Host is not a male, legitimately ordained priest - this includes when the lay congregation “co-consecrates” the Eucharist with the priest,
2. If the priests uses anything but unleavened wheat bread or grape wine (or low-gluten bread and mustum for wheat allergies and alcoholism respectively),
3. If the priest does not say the words “This is my Body…This is my Blood…Do this in memory of me”, and therefore does not say the words Christ did,
4. This surprised me: If the priest does not INTEND to turn the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood, it does not become Christ’s Body and Blood.

These are the only liturgical abuses that invalidate a Mass. The rest are illegal, but do not put in jeopardy your right to the consecrated Host. They do, however, give less reverence to the Mass than is right and proper.

Source: ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

This is fairly correct. There is also an exception to #2. If the priest uses wheat bread that is leavened, the mass is valid and can be licit in some situations, but most of the time it’s not licit. I’m remembering those priests in prison under the Nazis and Communists who had to celebrate mass in their cells with a piece of bread from their meal. One of them being St. Maximilian Kolbe. The friars who were in prison with him did say that he would celebrate mass for them with regular table bread or whatever they call table bread in a concentration camp. There is also a famous Vietnamese Cardinal whose name escapes me right now. He too was in prison for many years and he tells how he would save a piece of bread from his meal and when he could get even a drop of wine, he would consecrate them. These masses are valid and licit.

It is not invalid to use leavened bread. It is the tradition of the Latin Church. Not is not a universal tradition. If it were invalid, none of the Catholic Churches would be able to use leavened bread. In the Latin Church it would be ilicit to do so. However, ilicit means illegal. The Church does not apply this law to situations such as the ones mentioned above.

**Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

§2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

§3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.

Can. 926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.**

There is an exception to #3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari does not contain the words of institution, but the meaning of the Eucharist and the intent to consecrate it there. The Chaldean Catholics are allowed to use it as it is. In some places the insert the words of institution and in other places they do not. The Church allows them to do either. Bl. John Paul II decreed that the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in a euchological and disseminated manner.

The article is not precise in its terms. It is better to use the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church and the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches than to use internet articles, unless they are by legitimate Catholic sources.

The minute you see words such as “abuse, modernist, modernism” you can be sure that the writer is not an authorized Catholic writer. The Church does not use such language in her delivery. The Church’s delivery is always very matter of fact and the language is usually very legal or very philosophical when it comes to such matters. For example the term “euchological” is a perfect example of philosophical language to explain why this particular anaphora is valid. She rarely uses the common man’s rhetoric. Those signs should send red flags that the writer has an agenda or is angry about something.

Be careful with such writings. Read them for your information, but verify with authoritative Catholic resources. At the end of the day, the the Sacred Congregation for the Faith said in an interview last week, the final word always rests with the pope and those whom he delegates, not with us or anyone else. Only the pope or his delegates can authoritatively interpret Sacred Tradition. Even in delegation, there are limits that the papacy places on Prefects and Presidents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TarkanAttila]

snip
Be careful with such writings. Read them for your information, but verify with authoritative Catholic resources. At the end of the day, the the Sacred Congregation for the Faith said in an interview last week, the final word always rests with the pope and those whom he delegates, not with us or anyone else. Only the pope or his delegates can authoritatively interpret Sacred Tradition. Even in delegation, there are limits that the papacy places on Prefects and Presidents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

1. Thank you for the exception notices. It’s good to remember that not all rules completely blanket everything, leaving no exceptions.
2. Our Lady’s Warriors are Traditional Catholics, but they are in communion with Rome. They want to fight liberalism among the clergy and the laity; they don’t believe there is any in the Church’s teachings themselves. I would not worry too much.

 

[manualman]

Hmm, my interpretation of that would be that they tried it the other way, and it didn’t work.
For instance, perhaps the priest wasn’t happy about carrying the chalices down the steps.

You know, EMHCs really aren’t the rebels they are assumed to be. We are told what to do by the clergy and we do it, then sometimes get the blame, or base motives assigned to us.

I don’t intend to assign any base motives to anybody. I’ve been in that position myself long before I ever heard of any such thing as a GIRM. I’m just relating what Ive observed. Right after the GIRM came out, they ceased the practice of distributing the hosts to the EMHCs before the priest consumed a host and the EMHCs were at least one step down from the level of the priest. They’ve stayed obedient on the time of reception, but I’ve noticed that they’ve resumed circling around the priest right behind him on the altar. I make no assumption about who may or my not have told them what to do, just what I’ve seen.

All this said, this all sure beats what I routinely saw incollege in Madison, WI almost 20 years ago now:

1. In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier…
2. Female ‘pastoral associate’ wore vestments (no stole) during mass, said homilies and visibly mouthed the words of consecration along with the priest while extending a hand towards the host as concelebrants often did at the time.
3. “Our Father, Our Mother God, who art in heaven…”
4. Leavened honey bread for communion that was so crumbly that it always left behind a mess of crumbs on the polished concrete floor. In hindsight, I hope those weren’t validly consecrated!
5. Each and every communicant was a EMHC for the person in line behind him/her.
   I’m sure there were more, but isn’t that enough? Even as a lukewarm kid I knew enough to get the heck out of there!