More liturgical abuse?

[Asperges_Me]

How would you know that?

Jim

I hope you can recognize the satire of my comment, when I turned around the comment of the person who said those who point out abuses don’t have the Mass on their mind. I’m sure that poster didn’t have any more proof either.

A lot of comments comments condoning deviations from the GIRM revolve around “unity” and “the community”. I submit that those who do violate the GIRM are the ones that go against unity. Who ever went away from Mass fuming mad that the priest followed the rubrics correctly? I certainly hope no one does. Then, why do priests or liturgists risk alienating people by using unauthorized innovations? Almost guartanteed someone will be upset. So why do it?

If we don’t have rules, then Mass just becomes a community theatre, that just happens to do that “Last Supper” thingy.

 

[chicago]

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

While he isn’t subject to the bishop’s authority as a member of the religious order, he is insofar as the Mass is being celebrated in the bishop’s diocese - as the local ordinary has both the right and responsibility to regulate the liturgy within these boundaries. Now, given, if he were celebrating the Dominican Rite under special papal privelege or something, this would be an exception. But such is not likely the case. Therefore, there remains no excuse (like the college campus ministries - where a lot of innovation originated - once employed) that they are under some other authority and not subject to the oversight of the local bishop. If anything, there is a certain double authority to which they are actually subject, both religious superiors and local ordinary in such a situation, at least as concerns liturgical celebrations.

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 is clearly the custom which they have devised for whatever reason and however longstanding. Which means that it won’t likely be easily corrected by one person expressing concern.

 

[Walking_Home]

What is becoming a “custom” is to manipulate the Mass.

 

[Walking_Home]

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)

---

Why not post to --ask the apologist forum. Ask if the Dominican priests are exempt from liturgical law when they offer Mass at your school chapel.

 

[Mannyfit75]

My high school offers daily Mass, and I attend whenever possible, but there are two things I have noticed I’m not entirely sure of. The first is at the sign of peace. The priest comes down from the sanctuary (It’s a small chapel) and shakes hands with the half-dozen or so people attending. I need to know if this is correct, but there is something else more pressing…

The** priest cannot leave **the sanctuary doing the offering of the sign of peace.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I hope you can recognize the satire of my comment, when I turned around the comment of the person who said those who point out abuses don’t have the Mass on their mind. I’m sure that poster didn’t have any more proof either.

They have the proof of seeing the person posting a complaint about the Mass they attended. Obviously, the “look-out for abuse” was on their mind instead of the Mass.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Obviously, the “look-out for abuse” was on their mind instead of the Mass

That is quite a leap here, to assume that this poster was 'looking out for abuse INSTEAD of attending to Mass" simply because he posted a POSSIBLE CONCERN. The poster never indicated that this was his purpose or intent --so YOU are the one making that judgment call.

I don’t understand the type of ‘either-or’ mentality that this presupposes. . . you don’t seem to accept that a person can be quite attentive to the Mass, as one SHOULD be, and that IN this attention note something questionable or concerning to him, WITHOUT being ‘looking out for abuse instead of Mass’.

Why is that? If you feel that there is a possibility that one can ‘note’ a concern while being ‘attentive to Mass’, why automatically assume or make blanket generalization statements that instead assume the OP and others, simply by noting concerns, had 'abuse on their minds instead of Mass?"

 

[Asperges_Me]

They have the proof of seeing the person posting a complaint about the Mass they attended. Obviously, the “look-out for abuse” was on their mind instead of the Mass.

Jim

And the fact that a priest or liturgist willfully and deliberately defied the directives of Holy Mother Church in the Roman Missal or the GIRM is not proof too?

Look, some people seem to think that the Mass boils down to saying the four Words of Consecration OK, and that everything else is a free for all. (And hope the priest get those four words right without having to invent something). To me that smacks of Protestantism. I don’t think that the thousands upon thousands of people I’ve read on blogs like this that question something are bad Catholics. It is the cutsie innovations that go against the unity and community of the Church, not the other way around.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And the fact that a priest or liturgist willfully and deliberately defied the directives of Holy Mother Church in the Roman Missal or the GIRM is not proof too?

If the priest actually committed liturgical abuse, I wouldn’t need to come into this forum and ask if it was abuse. It would be obvious to myself and anyone else who attended the Mass.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

If the priest actually committed liturgical abuse, I wouldn’t need to come into this forum and ask if it was abuse. It would be obvious to myself and anyone else who attended the Mass.

Jim

---

This is what this forum is for JimR–OCDS. People come here to ask and to learn. It was obvious enough to the OP that he did come here to verify.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

This is what this forum is for JimR–OCDS. People come here to ask and to learn. It was obvious enough to the OP that he did come here to verify.

Except what they learn here may not correct, especially with the large amount of fundamentalist bias on these issues.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

Except what they learn here may not correct, especially with the large amount of fundamentalist bias on these issues.

Jim

---

No bias — just truth. That truth is provided by the Church Herself. Now --from reading your responses in various threads—it seems that the knowledge the Church has provided — is a thorn in your side. You would rather keep people ignorant of what the Church really says and let the wind which undermines the Church continue to blow.

 

[Silver_Thread]

My high school offers daily Mass, and I attend whenever possible, but there are two things I have noticed I’m not entirely sure of. The first is at the sign of peace. The priest comes down from the sanctuary (It’s a small chapel) and shakes hands with the half-dozen or so people attending. I need to know if this is correct, but there is something else more pressing…

At communion, the priest gives everyone the Host, but after recieving the host, the congregation goes up behind the altar and drinks from the chalice, wiping it off afterward, etc. As I understand, this is done to save time, as Mass is in the morning in the half-hour before the first class of the day, so this part is done because of time constraints. I need to know if this is allowable.

Tim: Without a doubt both practices are liberals making it up as they go along. Why the Lavabo(washing of hands) if he’s going to go out and shake hands? It’s contradictory. Second we may absolutely not self communicate! Period! However, again, the liberals make it up as they go along! Pray for this Priest! If there is no other Mass you can attend, suffer through it. This too will pass!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

No bias — just truth. That truth is provided by the Church Herself. Now --from reading your responses in various threads—it seems that the knowledge the Church has provided — is a thorn in your side. You would rather keep people ignorant of what the Church really says and let the wind which undermines the Church continue to blow.

The teachings of the Church are not always presented completely in forums such as this. People pick and choose verses which support their arguments and either deliberately, or ignroantly, leave out other information that would weaken their argument.

As I’ve always said, I’ll trust the teachings and guidence of my Bishop and pastor, over what is posted in this forum.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tim: Without a doubt both practices are liberals making it up as they go along. Why the Lavabo(washing of hands) if he’s going to go out and shake hands? It’s contradictory. Second we may absolutely not self communicate! Period! However, again, the liberals make it up as they go along! Pray for this Priest! If there is no other Mass you can attend, suffer through it. This too will pass!

Can you provide a definition of what a liberal is?

Jim

 

[estesbob]

Can you provide a definition of what a liberal is?

Jim

Anyone who doesnt beleive the Tredientine Mass wasnt engraved on the flip side of the Ten Commandments Moses bought down from Mt Sanai…

 

[Walking_Home]

The teachings of the Church are not always presented completely in forums such as this. People pick and choose verses which support their arguments and either deliberately, or ignroantly, leave out other information that would weaken their argument.

As I’ve always said, I’ll trust the teachings and guidence of my Bishop and pastor, over what is posted in this forum.

Jim

---

Really now JimR_OCDS. Being your own authority vs. Church documents which have been provided shows how transparent your arguments are.

Even your pastor and bishop are not above the directives issued by Rome. Your are doing an injustice to yourself and moreso to others by making believe that they are.

 

[lizaanne]

I’m never quite sure why these things are so difficult to understand.

There is right - and there is wrong. Why would any Catholic ever EVER condone any priest choosing to do something wrong, no matter how trivial or small it may seem? Is it really so hard for a priest to keep his butt where it belongs and not be the social director of the happy clappy event? Why is it so hard to just do things RIGHT - ESPECIALLY at a high school Mass where children are learning by what they see and experience. Above all, I would think that a school Mass should be absolutely perfect for this very reason.

I had to say something to an EMHC last night because they decided to leave about an ounce of the Precious Blood in the glass chalices just sitting on the side table after Mass. I was told that he “didn’t care to discuss it”.

Tim - you speak out when you see abuses in your Church. It can be a slippery slope of accepting one abuse because it seems so very trivial, then the next one, then the next, and before we know it the Mass no longer resembles what it is supposed to.

Fight the good fight - men will always revile you for His namesake - but you will be blessed for it. There is right and there is wrong. Never stand for the wrong. Especially when it comes to your Faith and the protection of Christ’s Bride, the Church.

~Liza

 

[chicago]

Why the Lavabo(washing of hands) if he’s going to go out and shake hands? It’s contradictory.!

Well, in that case, the priest ought not even shake hands with the servers or other priests who are in the sanctuary. The argument has a certain value on its own part, but not necessarily in this context, therefore.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, the posts above were so concerning to me in demonstrating many areas of problems that at first I was all set to mount another defense. . .but on second thought. . .

I challenge the readers to carefully explore the posts here from both ‘sides’ and to make their own decision as to which ‘side’ seems to have more, and more sustained, reason, Christian charity, lack of name-calling, etc. in order to form a balanced opinion on the original topic. For myself, lest I fall into error myself (or if I have already done so I apologize) I am going to stay away from this thread for a while. I think I’ve made a clear point–several in fact–and that should be sufficient. I neither wish to be, or to participate even unknowingly, in anything which could be an occasion of sin. . .and sadly in my perception there is already far too much here which is tending toward that. . .

I just hope there is enough food for thought here that people are not so disgusted with EITHER view that they would either totally dismiss the concerns, or dismiss the people, in anger, doubt, or hopelessness of resolution. For the overall topic is one of great importance to all us Catholics.