More liturgical abuse?

[JimR-OCDS]

---

The Church has covered that it the following: What you are actually reinforcing is the intrusion of the “Spirit of Vat II”.

RS–2004

4.] “Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.”[10] Even so, “shadows are not lacking”.[11] In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.

And what abuses was the Pope addressing? Was he talking about the priest in the OP’s note, where he shook hands with the few who attended the Mass? Or that he allowed them to receive from the cup at the altar?

Or was the Pope talking about flagrant liturgical abuse that went against Vatican II. Things such as nuns giving the homily. NonCatholics knowingly being allowed to receive Holy Communion?

Again, you have to go back to the Vatican II document, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

And what abuses was the Pope addressing? Was he talking about the priest in the OP’s note, where he shook hands with the few who attended the Mass? Or that he allowed them to receive from the cup at the altar?

Or was the Pope talking about flagrant liturgical abuse that went against Vatican II. Things such as nuns giving the homily. NonCatholics knowingly being allowed to receive Holy Communion?

Again, you have to go back to the Vatican II document, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Jim

---

JimR-OCDS — your continuing posts are really not doing much for you. It is really not becoming of someone who has been thru various discussion in this forums (including this one) – to then come across with a “misunderstanding” of what the Church considers an abuse and place their misunderstanding on the shoulders of Vat II.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

JimR-OCDS — your continuing posts are really not doing much for you. It is really not becoming of someone who has been thru various discussion in this forums (including this one) – to then come across with a “misunderstanding” of what the Church considers an abuse and place their misunderstanding on the shoulders of Vat II.

OK, then you clarify the abuses the Pope was addressing in this document.

Also, clarify for us, what norms the Pope is speaking about, when he uses the term. Is it the norms spelled out in the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, or some other norms?

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

OK, then you clarify the abuses the Pope was addressing in this document.

Also, clarify for us, what norms the Pope is speaking about, when he uses the term. Is it the norms spelled out in the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, or some other norms?

Jim

---

What-- JimR_OCDS—after all this time in these forums—you are trying to plead “innocence” of not knowing what the liturgical norms are and what the Pope was speaking about that mandated a document to further clarify and enforce the liturgical norms.
Your attempts are becoming just to unbelievable.

 

[chicago]

---

Again estesbob—I am comparing action vs. inaction. My response to chicago is based on his/her idea of inaction—not acting—which only results in the continued manipulation of the Mass.

And my point is that there are different forms of “action” which are all quite legitimate approaches. Just because someone chooses to be at peace and offer it up to God, or bear with burdens patiently rather than directly confronting a priest, for instance, doesn’t make it any less “action.” Indeed, in the spiritual economy, it may be the greater work in the larger scheme of things.

 

[Woodstock]

Reported?, not necessarily. All abuses must be corrected however.

Hopefully, that just involves bringing to the attention of the person who commited the abuse. If not, then the issue SHOULD be brought to the attention of higher authorities until the issue is corrected.

Since the person who started this thread has yet to receive much advice on what to do about the situation while everyone argues if anything should be done, I thought I would again point out the useful advice on how to go about doing this. **Do any of you know which species someone would ordinarily assist with during intinction? **Would he offer to hold the chalice or the hosts for Father if he decided to go that route?

I thought this advice was good and addressed all the problems involved, so I’ve quoted it.

Another possible way for Father to offer both species in the same amount of time is through intinction. You could offer your services the same way as Chicago suggested, but instead of offering to be an EHMC, you can offer to hold whichever species is the appropriate one (I don’t know) to allow him to intinct.

Chicago:

The way to deal with this is to politiely offer your services in being an EMHC (and maybe recruit a couple of others to do likewise.) Don’t approach it as, “We are doing something wrong which needs to be corrected,” but rather, “Father, I notice that you don’t have anyone to assist with the cup at communion. Could I help? I’d really like to offer my service in that way and I think that there might be others who would, also!” In this way, you’d be seeking a positive solution which could be found acceptable while making people feel involved in a way which ought to be considered commendable by all parties involved.

 

[Walking_Home]

And my point is that there are different forms of “action” which are all quite legitimate approaches. Just because someone chooses to be at peace and offer it up to God, or bear with burdens patiently rather than directly confronting a priest, for instance, doesn’t make it any less “action.” Indeed, in the spiritual economy, it may be the greater work in the larger scheme of things.

---

Again chicago–what you are advocating is in essence–inaction and trying to pass it off as being for the greater work. When we encounter someone in need—some can choose to do nothing and fool themselves with the idea of “being at peace and offer it up to God”----after all eventually someone may step up and do something for the person in need.

The people who are being denied a Mass as the Church intends–are in need of help. The priests who deny this to their flock are in need of help by way of charitable correction. What you advocate is the walking away from offering that help under the disguise of being a “greater work” in the scheme of things.

 

[Belfarmer]

In Mt 25:14-29, the parable of the talents among other things teaches that those who are faithful in small matters can be trusted to be faithful in larger matters. The priest leaving the sanctuary to shake hands is a small matter, self communicating is a large matter, so to take these issues to the priest with a attitude of charity, obedience, and true desire to advance one’s knowledge of the Catholic faith would be most proper and one’s duty as a Catholic. If a priest is truly obedient in the small matters, he can be trusted to be obedient in large.

 

[chicago]

---

Again chicago–what you are advocating is in essence–inaction and trying to pass it off as being for the greater work. When we encounter someone in need—some can choose to do nothing and fool themselves with the idea of “being at peace and offer it up to God”----after all eventually someone may step up and do something for the person in need.

No. What I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. And certain approaches might not do anything more than chase the cat away. It is a matter of prudence in approach. Often, we have to think of what is best in the entire picture rather than just trying to get it all fixed right now and losing what little ground we may have had for real incremental progress.

The people who are being denied a Mass as the Church intends–are in need of help. The priests who deny this to their flock are in need of help by way of charitable correction. What you advocate is the walking away from offering that help under the disguise of being a “greater work” in the scheme of things.

What I advocate is assessing the situation honestly. If there is the liklihood of instigating growth and change for the good by any means then this is a good thing. But, likewise, we must acknowledge that some approaches may not only fail to effect change, but only make things worse. In this case, another approach is in order.

It’s like on a football field where if you can drive the ball right up the middle for a significant gain you do. If there is an open man in the endzone, pass it. But if those routes are not realistic, then an end around to gain 3 yards is just as acceptable.

 

[Walking_Home]

No. What I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. And certain approaches might not do anything more than chase the cat away. It is a matter of prudence in approach. Often, we have to think of what is best in the entire picture rather than just trying to get it all fixed right now and losing what little ground we may have had for real incremental progress.

What I advocate is assessing the situation honestly. If there is the liklihood of instigating growth and change for the good by any means then this is a good thing. But, likewise, we must acknowledge that some approaches may not only fail to effect change, but only make things worse. In this case, another approach is in order.
It’s like on a football field where if you can drive the ball right up the middle for a significant gain you do. If there is an open man in the endzone, pass it. But if those routes are not realistic, then an end around to gain 3 yards is just as acceptable.

---

I have not stated that taking action is going to fix it all right now. It has taken what --about 30-40 years to get us to where we are. The solution is not going to be quick–fast–instantaneous. It will take alot of hard work to slowly turn the tide–for resistance is strong.

You are already coming across as if–taking action will fail–when in reality it has been our inaction which has failed. Our inaction has given to those who are willing to manipulate the Mass–the upper hand and basicly mop the field with the Mass and us along with it.

 

[chicago]

---

I have not stated that taking action is going to fix it all right now. It has taken what --about 30-40 years to get us to where we are. The solution is not going to be quick–fast–instantaneous. It will take alot of hard work to slowly turn the tide–for resistance is strong.

You are already coming across as if–taking action will fail–when in reality it has been our inaction which has failed. Our inaction has given to those who are willing to manipulate the Mass–the upper hand and basicly mop the field with the Mass and us along with it.

Again, the problem is that you are insistant that any approach which does not meet your preference is inaction. It is not. It is merely a different approach.

Experience, I must insist, often suggests that direct confrontation (even charitibly so), letter writing to bishops, et al hasn’t done much other than get us dismissed. Taking the long look at how to bring about change “in due time” and creating positive options which understand and appeal to the sensibilities of others is likely what will be effective long term. That isn’t inaction. It is wise action.

 

[Walking_Home]

Again, the problem is that you are insistant that any approach which does not meet your preference is inaction. It is not. It is merely a different approach.

Experience, I must insist, often suggests that direct confrontation (even charitibly so), letter writing to bishops, et al hasn’t done much other than get us dismissed. Taking the long look at how to bring about change “in due time” and creating positive options which understand and appeal to the sensibilities of others is likely what will be effective long term. That isn’t inaction. It is wise action.

---

If the bishops are not receptive–then the next step is to go up.
We have given decades to “in due time” and its has become worse—because the so called “sensibilities” of the ones who manipulate the Mass have become dominant.

We have been given a mandate by the Church. She is fully aware of what certain “sensibilities” have done thru time with the Mass.
It leaves one to wonder—why would anyone seek to induce people to dismiss an action --which the Church Herself has mandated to the People.

 

[Silver_Thread]

---

I do not think --you need to go to confession. Just charitably speak to the priest about your concern --that he is allowing things contrary to the Church.

Yeah verily I say unto you be thou prepared to receiveth a dumbeth down reply.