More liturgical abuse?

[JimR-OCDS]

Brenden

The GIRM is Liturgical Law.

No its not. Its a general guide, just as it says.

The Bishop has the rightful authority to ensure that the Mass is being said properly within the guidelines of the rubric. However, the Bishop can allow the priest to make deviations, as long as they do not take away the sacredness of the Mass.

In this case, the Mass was being said in a Chapel, not a Church. I don’t know what the situation was in this chapel, but I have attended Mass in Chapels no bigger than a small TV room in your home, where there is no sanctuary per se. Also, there was never more than 5 people present, so the priest offered the cup, to all. We were not self communicating, he was the minister who offered it.

The GIRM is to help ensure that true liturgical abuse does not occur. The petty complaints in this forum are not in the spirit of charity toward the priest saying the Mass, or the Bishops who are the overseers.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The problem is that when you are a high school student trying to “school” (even if charitibly so) the priest, it isn’t likely to get you very far. Instead, you’re more apt to be met with polite scorn and nothing will change. One must think incrementally in order to be effective, often.

I see your point and it has merit, true. But the fact is that the idea of the ‘high school student the priest’ is not necessarily what is taking place. After all, Jesus praised the Father for making his works known to ‘little ones’ and we are often told that the young, (as with Timothy), the ‘ignorant’ (the way one often thinks of the apostles), and the ‘children’ are the ones closest to the Kingdom.

As a mother, I know that ‘elders’ deserve respect. . .but even a mother with a Ph.D. can make a ‘duh’ mistake and should not feel THREATENED when told about it by her 5 year old child. The problem starts, IOW, when the person is more concerned about their APPEARANCE of being “the older, the wiser, the more informed” to the point where it is the APPEARANCE that becomes the focus of a given concern, and NOT the actual concern itself.

As a professional person over 50 now, I am not threatened by a man or woman of a much younger age questioning me over things. Often, I’m ‘right’; sometimes I’m ‘wrong’, and sometimes I am simply doing something ‘differently’. If I were to start stomping and chafing that am the ‘senior person’ and THEY were to return with <well, we have the most RECENT KNOWLEDGE and TECHNIQUE>, NOBODY is going to wind up with much more than hurt feelings and resentment, and all for the sake of ‘looking good’ or ‘maintaining our prestige’.

Now if the young whippersnapper starts making pointed remarks about me having to increase my dose of Alzheimer meds, that’s another story. (No I would not respond in kind. . .but I would tell them flat out to address me with proper respect or we’d be seeing Human Resources the next minute). I do not think most high schoolers would be addressing Father with less than respect. Further, I think that if Father takes the time to talk with said high schooler, even if the two of them still wind up disagreeing, both of them are going to wind up respecting each other more–provided that neither ONE OF THEM is making premature judgments about the ‘intentions’ of the other, or is more concerned with ‘being right’ than with serving God.

 

[Brendan]

Brenden

No its not. Its a general guide, just as it says.

No, it says the General INSTRUCTIONS for the Roman Missal, not the General SUGGESTIONS…

The Bishop has the rightful authority to ensure that the Mass is being said properly within the guidelines of the rubric. However, the Bishop can allow the priest to make deviations, as long as they do not take away the sacredness of the Mass.

Can you tell us exactly were this has been stated, or is it just your wishful thinking?

In this case, the Mass was being said in a Chapel, not a Church. I don’t know what the situation was in this chapel, but I have attended Mass in Chapels no bigger than a small TV room in your home, where there is no sanctuary per se. Also, there was never more than 5 people present, so the priest offered the cup, to all. We were not self communicating, he was the minister who offered it.

Good, the priest offered the cup, that is EXACTLY what the GIRM allows.

The GIRM is to help ensure that true liturgical abuse does not occur. The petty complaints in this forum are not in the spirit of charity toward the priest saying the Mass, or the Bishops who are the overseers.

Jim

What exactly is a ‘true’ abuse.

Pope John Paul said that we have a Right to hear Mass accoring to the Rubrics. If Mass is not being said according to the approved rubrics, the rights of the faithful are being violated.

Is it a Christian act to just stand by while rights are being violated?

 

[Brendan]

But in this case, the OP didn’t check with the acused priest, or other priest. People in this forum are far from being experts on the liturgy, nor do they know what a diocesan Bishop has allowed.

Jim

But we are very familiar with what a bishop is permitted to allow is his diocese.

This is not one of them.

 

[Brendan]

The level of nitpicking is the issue here. The priest is shaking hands, as is called for. The big picture is, he is making peace with his brethren. I don’t call that liturgical .

No, the priest is NOT making peace with his bretheren, that happens in the penitential rite.

What happens at the Kiss of Peace is that the priest offers Christ’s Peace to us, and we give a SIGN of that peace to others. Note that this is just a sign, not the Peace of Christ itself, The laity cannot offer that, only the priest (and he already did that).

We do not, and cannot, offer the Peace of Christ, but can only offer a SIGN, a SYMBOL of it.

I refer you to Redemptionis Sacramentum.

[71.] The practice of the Roman Rite is to be maintained according to which the peace is extended shortly before Holy Communion. For according to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice does not have the connotation either of reconciliation or of a remission of sins, but instead signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is rather the Penitential Act to be carried out at the beginning of Mass (especially in its first form) which has the character of reconciliation among brothers and sisters.

 

[Brendan]

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[72.] It is appropriate “that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner”. “The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful”. “As regards the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the dispositions and customs of the people”, and their acts are subject to the recognitio of the Apostolic See.

So yes Jim,\ bishops may change this practice, but only the Conference of Bishops (not an individual bishop) and even then, only with approval from Rome.

Those approvals are published in Notatiae , which I subscribe to, and the USCCB has neither requested that the priest be allowed to leave the Sanctuary, nor has Rome approved it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, it says the General INSTRUCTIONS for the Roman Missal, not the General SUGGESTIONS…

Instuction means to instruct or teach, not law . If the GIRM were law as you suggest, it would be titled, Laws and Regulations of the Sacred Liturgy.

Can you tell us exactly were this has been stated, or is it just your wishful thinking?

 

[Walking_Home]

Brendan;2814723:

No, it says the General INSTRUCTIONS for the Roman Missal, not the General SUGGESTIONS…

Instuction means to instruct or teach, not law . If the GIRM were law as you suggest, it would be titled, Laws and Regulations of the Sacred Liturgy.

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

In accord with the Rubrics, but he never took away the authority of the Bishops to regulate the norms for their dioceses.

This does not mean following the rubrics to the absolute letter in ever instance. There are variances that the Bishop can determine. An example of this is monasteries, which do not have to follow the rubrics to the letter.

Jim

---

RS–2004 --clarifies the role of the bishops and bishop conferences. As is stated —they do not have the authority to experiment with the Mass and their authority is regulated by the Church Herself–“within the limits of his competence”. Any and all norms by bishops need a recognitio (authorization) from Rome --without which–they carry no binding force.

Your argument that the GIRM and instruction/directives like RS–2004 are not laws falls flat by the fact that the CDW is entrusted to enforce the discipline.

RS-2004

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.[45] Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]

 

[chicago]

Further, I think that if Father takes the time to talk with said high schooler, even if the two of them still wind up disagreeing, both of them are going to wind up respecting each other more–provided that neither ONE OF THEM is making premature judgments about the ‘intentions’ of the other, or is more concerned with ‘being right’ than with serving God.

Perhaps this is the key. But, again, in this all too human world those premature judgements are typically the norm. As such, it often takes a certain discretion in action which is not always as direct in order to be effective. A situation where “everyone wins” rather than either side feeling defensive of superior. That is a grace to find achieved and can’t simply be expected heading in when questioning a situation. More likely, both sides will more or less lock horns (or become dismissive of each other) and nothing truly positive results.

 

[Walking_Home]

Pope Benedict XVI

zenit.org/article-19606?l=english

“Precisely because faith, life, and the celebration of the sacred liturgy – the source of faith and life – are inseparable, there is need for a more correct implementation of the liturgical principles as indicated by the Second Vatican Council, as well as those contained in the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops (cf. 145-151), so as to restore to the liturgy its sacred character. It was with this end in view that my Venerable Predecessor on the Chair of Peter, John Paul II, wished “to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity … Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (Encyclical Letter “Ecclesia de Eucharistia,” 52). For Bishops, who are the “moderators of the Church’s liturgical life”,** the rediscovery and appreciation of obedience to liturgical norms is a form of witness to the one, universal Church, that presides in charity**.”

 

[quiet52]

From the “preamble” of the"Redemptionis Sacramentum" (which continues “Ecclesia de Eucharista”):

It is not at all the intention here to prepare a compendium of the norms regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, but rather, to take up within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force in order to assure a deeper appreciation of the liturgical norms; to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at his disposal.

During the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest is not “Father so-and-so” … he is serving In Persona Christi. He’s not supposed to do what he thinks is “cool” or as he wills, but, in obedience, as Christ was obedient to the Father, doing as the Holy Church wills. He serves in an “executive capacity.” There is a historical and/or spiritual reason behind every liturgical action, whether the priest remembers the reasons or the congregation realizes them, or not.

The RS designates three levels of abuse – and allowing the congregation to serve themselves from the chalice – called "self-communicating – constitutes a “grave” (or middle-level) act of abuse.

For us to be judged as nitpicky, uncharitable, or worse is just absurd. Because we happen to be informed about what the Vatican requires, because we happen to notice the abuses (we’re not stupid – we can read) … does NOT mean we’re looking for abuses or focused on them during the celebration of the Mass. Sheesh. Jesus knows our hearts. The encyclicals and other documents offered by our Pope and his staff are for all of us, not just for the priests.

Chapter VIII

REMEDIES

[169.] Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, “the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed”.

[170.] In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”, so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means.

[171.] Among the various abuses there are some which are objectively graviora delicta or otherwise constitute grave matters, as well as others which are nonetheless to be carefully avoided and corrected. Bearing in mind everything that is treated especially in Chapter I of this Instruction, attention should be paid to what follows.

1. Graviora delicta

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely: (click on link below if you’d like to read the list)

1. Grave Matters

[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.

1. Other Abuses

[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.

[175.] The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20VII

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;2814891:

---

RS–2004 --clarifies the role of the bishops and bishop conferences. As is stated —they do not have the authority to experiment with the Mass and their authority is regulated by the Church Herself–“within the limits of his competence”. Any and all norms by bishops need a recognitio (authorization) from Rome --without which–they carry no binding force.

Your argument that the GIRM and instruction/directives like RS–2004 are not laws falls flat by the fact that the CDW is entrusted to enforce the discipline.

RS-2004

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces

sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.[45] Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]

I have no problem with what you just posted. However, what goes on in these forums and what is called liturgical abuse, because of the literal reading of the GIRM, does not necessarily mean that there was abuse.

This thread is a case in point. People read what the GIRM says, without knowing that some legal variances that are allowed, within monasteries and perhaps high-school chapels. In other words, we really don’t know, because we don’t have the local Bishop or the celebrant to explain his actions to us.

To come out and accuse a priest of abusing the Sacred Liturgy is done out of ignorance.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

Kathy

Me too!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

To come out and accuse a priest of abusing the Sacred Liturgy is done out of ignorance.

IN YOUR OPINION. . .

Yes, most priests do not DELIBERATELY abuse.

But SOME DO. And I’m not just ‘claiming’ that in my ‘ignorance’. . .there are documented cases where priests have admitted to deliberate abuse, for many different reasons. When they go on to ask forgiveness, the Lord knows I grant it willingly so I’m not on a vendetta, Jim. . .but for you to intimate that there is just NEVER any ‘priest’ liturgical abuse, but that anyone who claims there is or ‘might’ be is ignorant, is troubling.

It’s one thing to be respectful of priests. It’s another to be so chary of maintaining a FACADE of respect that one turns a blind eye to anything irregular, and just ‘assumes’ that Father, being a ‘Father’ MUST BE RIGHT.

By far the majority of any priests in a situation where abuse occurs, though, UNKNOWINGLY abuse. And the same goes for us laity, Jim. . .most of us do not deliberately abuse, a few DO deliberately abuse, and a fair number UNKNOWINGLY ABUSE.

To attempt to make every single ‘inquiry’ by any person (and you do not know our hearts, Jim) into an attack on them as IGNORANT is wrong and hurtful, IMO.

Why can’t you be as tender of the heart, and soul, and mind of the ‘questioners’ as you are of the priests you are so quick to present as ‘victims’? You may not realize it but by automatically assigning any ‘question’ into an ‘attack of ignorant versus poor beleaguered priest’ you are not fair to the PRIEST either. By giving them ‘victim’ status you are automatically ‘boxing’ and labeling them and then rather than treat them as individuals, you go into doing the ‘expected’ things one does for ‘victims’ instead of actually addressing the real issue!! Further, in automatically assigning the questioners the status of ‘bullies’ or ‘ignorant’ you are labelling THEM, blocking out any real chance of understanding them as a person and just treating them like a STEREOTYPE. Heaven knows not every person who ‘questions’ is doing so ‘innocently’–but NEITHER IS EVERY PERSON WHO QUESTIONS AN IGNORAMUS, BULLY, OR EVILDOER.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;2815249:

I have no problem with what you just posted. However, what goes on in these forums and what is called liturgical abuse, because of the literal reading of the GIRM,

does not necessarily mean that there was abuse.

This thread is a case in point. People read what the GIRM says, without knowing that some legal variances that are allowed, within monasteries and perhaps high-school chapels. In other words, we really don’t know, because we don’t have the local Bishop or the celebrant to explain his actions to us.

To come out and accuse a priest of abusing the Sacred Liturgy is done out of ignorance.

Jim​

Goodness----by the way you interpret-- a red traffic signal is just a suggestion. Cautions/danger warnings (do not ingest) for chemicals are suggestions. This mode of interpretation is can be quite dangerouse for you and for others.

 

[Asperges_Me]

Oh, it’s an abuse, but don’t let it stop you from attending.

I’ve found that those who attend Mass with the GIRM constantly on their mind, don’t have the Mass on their mind.

John

Funny, I’ve found that those who do not follow the GIRM, often don’t have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on their mind

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Just to clarify, the priest who offers Mass in the chapel is Dominican, not dioscesan. Thus, he is not subject to the local bishop.

Also, it is not just one priest allowing the behind-the-altar thing, it’s all the priests who I’ve seen there. (there are three or so who alternate day-to-day)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

IN YOUR OPINION. . .

Yes, most priests do not DELIBERATELY abuse.

But SOME DO. And I’m not just ‘claiming’ that in my ‘ignorance’. . .there are documented cases where priests have admitted to deliberate abuse, for many different reasons. When they go on to ask forgiveness, the Lord knows I grant it willingly so I’m not on a vendetta, Jim. . .but for you to intimate that there is just NEVER any ‘priest’ liturgical abuse, but that anyone who claims there is or ‘might’ be is ignorant, is troubling.

It’s one thing to be respectful of priests. It’s another to be so chary of maintaining a FACADE of respect that one turns a blind eye to anything irregular, and just ‘assumes’ that Father, being a ‘Father’ MUST BE RIGHT.

By far the majority of any priests in a situation where abuse occurs, though, UNKNOWINGLY abuse. And the same goes for us laity, Jim. . .most of us do not deliberately abuse, a few DO deliberately abuse, and a fair number UNKNOWINGLY ABUSE.

To attempt to make every single ‘inquiry’ by any person (and you do not know our hearts, Jim) into an attack on them as IGNORANT is wrong and hurtful, IMO.

Why can’t you be as tender of the heart, and soul, and mind of the ‘questioners’ as you are of the priests you are so quick to present as ‘victims’? You may not realize it but by automatically assigning any ‘question’ into an ‘attack of ignorant versus poor beleaguered priest’ you are not fair to the PRIEST either. By giving them ‘victim’ status you are automatically ‘boxing’ and labeling them and then rather than treat them as individuals, you go into doing the ‘expected’ things one does for ‘victims’ instead of actually addressing the real issue!! Further, in automatically assigning the questioners the status of ‘bullies’ or ‘ignorant’ you are labelling THEM, blocking out any real chance of understanding them as a person and just treating them like a STEREOTYPE. Heaven knows not every person who ‘questions’ is doing so ‘innocently’–but NEITHER IS EVERY PERSON WHO QUESTIONS AN IGNORAMUS, BULLY, OR EVILDOER.

I never said there was never liturgical abuse, I know there is and I’ve experienced it, when a visiting priest came preaching for his mission, at my parish. He used his own words for the Eucharistic prayers, and he even went so far as insulting the people, he was pleading with to donate money.

However, most of the threads in this forum, including this one, where there is a claim of liturgical abuse, is not necessarily so.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just to clarify, the priest who offers Mass in the chapel is Dominican, not dioscesan. Thus, he is not subject to the local bishop.

Also, it is not just one priest allowing the behind-the-altar thing, it’s all the priests who I’ve seen there. (there are three or so who alternate day-to-day)

Then it could be that they are allowed to let people behind the altar to receive from the cup?

The Carmelita Friars who said Mass at the little Chapel, that my first CODS group attended, always allowed us to receive from the cup off the altar. As I said before, the chapel was about the size of a TV room maybe 12’ X 14’, where there was no dividing line for the sanctuary, and there was never more than five of us present.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Funny, I’ve found that those who do not follow the GIRM, often don’t have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on their mind

How would you know that?

Jim