Most common abuse at mass today.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
fix:
I could say the same to you regarding arrogance, friend. Did the use of female servers begin with the permission of Rome? My opinion about female serves is legitimate. Each priest has the authority to decide if he will allow them. So, the Church does allow it, but not without qualification.
Click to expand...
It began with women deacons at the time the New Testament letters and epistles were being written.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
 
I think a good investment for some of you would be a good dictionary. There really is no excuse for all the atrocious spelling.

You can’t really blame the congregation for these abuses, the priests do nothing to correct them. Father could start with one thing, for example, ask the people to please not hold hands at the Our Father, and explain why. Then he could move into something else at a later time, ie, respect other people while in the church and leave your conversations at the door.

My pet peeve is people talking out loud as soon as Mass is ended. I just joined a very orthodox church and the only drawback is the constant loud chatter after Mass. It is so annoying. Why would anyone want to stay and try to pray. :mad:
 
40.png
MarkInOregon:
I don’t think your first Masses were in Latin–or even in the form of the Latin Mass used in 1962–I go back and check but I’m guessing that particular Mass dates from around the time of Trent.

The earliest Masses took place in homes, had a meal as well as the Eucharist and took place in the language of the area–Greek often times. The Mass has evolved over time. To imply that the Mass sprung full form in the year -0- and didn’t change for 1962 years is simply incorrect.

Society changed in the 1960’s and 1970’s and keeping the Mass in Latin would not have prevented that nor would it have kept many Catholics from embracing all the secular world promotes. I think extremely poor catechesis has more to do with the problems than the Mass not being in Latin. Catholics no longer know what the Chruch teaches–nor why it teaches as it does–and that is your problem.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
Click to expand...
Mark,
Well first…the Mass DID spring from year zero. (or year 33 acording to the Gregorian Calender). Christ instituted the Mass…His Sacrifice…united wiht the Last Supper(foretaste of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb).

As for language the Earliest Liturgical languages were Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. When Cyril and Methodius translated the Bible and Divine Liturgy into Slavonic (they invented the alphabet for the Slav’s as well) they were confronted about the introduction of Slavonic used in the Liturgy.
It was the Pope who praised and affirmed the work of the Apostles to the Slavs.
The Sacredness of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass(Liturgy) has always been believed and practiced from the beginning.

As for Latin…Pope John XXIII and Vatican II praised Latin as the proper language of the Mass in the Roman Rite. We are the Latin Church. The Latin should be said at the consecration…period. I’m not opposed to some english in other parts of the mass, but with the mis-translations we have…its better to start at accuracy and sacredness with the Latin.

The rejection of our Latin heritage has aided in the poor catechesis. We should embrace what Vatican II called for use to have as the standard bearer in the Mass…Latin, Gregorian Chant and Polyphony.
 
40.png
MarkInOregon:
It began with women deacons at the time the New Testament letters and epistles were being written.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
Click to expand...
Talk about failure to know your history.

First…deaconesses were the wives of ordained Deacons(men) that were used to maintain modestry of women getting baptised in an ancient mysoginist culture. A woman can never be ordained.

The First Council of Nicea…woman cannot be ordained and even those employed or in approved groups (i.e. religious orders) are to be counted among the laity.

The use of women for serving the altar (in the sanctuary at all) has always been avowedly condemned by both east and west (Altae Sunt). The reason has to do with the symbol and reality of what the Mass IS. Catechesis has been so poor that many are decived and few know of the profouned symbolic nature of the Mass to explain the realiity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
40.png
Agomemnon:
Mark,
Well first…the Mass DID spring from year zero. (or year 33 acording to the Gregorian Calender). Christ instituted the Mass…His Sacrifice…united wiht the Last Supper(foretaste of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb).

I didn’t say that it did not–I said it did not spring full blown as it was in the 1962 Latin version. Please read what I said.

As for language the Earliest Liturgical languages were Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. When Cyril and Methodius translated the Bible and Divine Liturgy into Slavonic (they invented the alphabet for the Slav’s as well) they were confronted about the introduction of Slavonic used in the Liturgy.
It was the Pope who praised and affirmed the work of the Apostles to the Slavs.
The Sacredness of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass(Liturgy) has always been believed and practiced from the beginning.

Again I never claimed this–only that it was not exactly the same as the 1962 Latin Mass–which is what the post I was responding to claimed. And you make my point about the earliest language–did you actually read my post?

As for Latin…Pope John XXIII and Vatican II praised Latin as the proper language of the Mass in the Roman Rite. We are the Latin Church. The Latin should be said at the consecration…period. I’m not opposed to some english in other parts of the mass, but with the mis-translations we have…its better to start at accuracy and sacredness with the Latin.

Again I don’t think I said Latin was bad–only that it was not the language of the first Masses–which is what the post I responded to implied by stating that the Mass had not changed in 1962 years–which is not correct.

The rejection of our Latin heritage has aided in the poor catechesis.

This I would disagree with. What has aided the poor Catechesis is that a few people used the reforms of Vatican II – to try and do away with teachings, practices, devotions, etc. that they didn’t like–Vatican II took place at one of the most tumultous times in western culture–and that is not the fault of the Latin Rite failing to maintain the use of Latin for its Mass. I for one see many positive things happening in the Church. I see that vocations are up, I see churches bringing back adoration, I see young adult groups and education classes, I see adult ed classes and bible studies, I see a desire to know what the Church teaches and why and I see a return to devotions like the Rosary and Chaplet of Divine Mercy and best of all I see a hunger and desire for all these especially in young people. I see more and larger families. Things take time, reforms take time to sort themselves out and I think Vatican II is starting to sort itself out and I think the future looks bright. Remember the Latin Mass did not stop or prevent the Reformation. I think in time we will have the orthodox bishops and priests we need–not over night but I see them coming. Pray and be patient.

I for one would like to see some of the elements of the TLM that were lost brought back into our current Mass and the occassional use of Latin for some parts of the Mass. Our parish used some Latin last Easter and I thought it was nice–but I would not want to return to a Mass said in Latin–as I find it detracts from my ability to participate fully in the Mass–and the Mass is a communal worship that we are all supposed to participate in together–not a private prayer service or the prayer of the priest alone.
Click to expand...
The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
 
40.png
Agomemnon:
Talk about failure to know your history.

First…deaconesses were the wives of ordained Deacons(men) that were used to maintain modestry of women getting baptised in an ancient mysoginist culture. A woman can never be ordained.

The First Council of Nicea…woman cannot be ordained and even those employed or in approved groups (i.e. religious orders) are to be counted among the laity.

The use of women for serving the altar (in the sanctuary at all) has always been avowedly condemned by both east and west (Altae Sunt). The reason has to do with the symbol and reality of what the Mass IS. Catechesis has been so poor that many are decived and few know of the profouned symbolic nature of the Mass to explain the realiity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
What is your problem? Where does all your anger come from? Where is your charity?

I would suggest that I am not as ignorant of history as it is you who are blinded by your own bias, anger, lack of understanding and charity.

If I am mistaken about your attitude I apologize in advance, but you already responded to one post without really reading what I said because your post was nonresponsive–so I being human feel slightly attacked and defensive as you seem not interested in what was said but simply in advancing your own point. I fail to see why we can’t engage in a civil discussion.

As far as my ignorance of history–(1) I never claimed to be a historian, (2) I simply pointed out they were referred to in new testatment times and thereby existed. The post I was responding to implied we had never seen such a thing in Church history–until Vatican II–seen woman serving in any capacity–and I was pointing out this is simply not true and (3) I was not aware–since they were discussing alter servers that an ordained office is what was being discussed.

As to your points: It is my understanding deaconesses wer woman who served the Church in a greater variety of roles than you suggest and that they were often widows. It is further my understanding that there was a liturgical rite involved although there is no evidence that they were ordained and the Council of Nicea in 325 stated that deaconesses were lay persons and not ordained. Thats the first 325 years.

Since alter servers are not ordained and are lay persons I thought it perfectly legitimate to point out that the early Church had woman servers called deaconesses who helped catechumans during the baptism immersion rite, read Scriptures to the community and distributed the Eucharist when a priest was not available–especially since the post implied the Church had never seen such a thing.

I never stated or weighed in with an opinion on the matter of alter servers–I simply pointed out in response to a post–implying the contrary–that the earliest Church had woman serving in the role of deaconess–whether or not it was an ordained position did not seem relevant to the discussion of alter servers. To attack me as you did was uncalled for.

If you have a problem it is not with the other posters or me–it is with the practices of the earliest Church and with St Paul–see Romans 16.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
 
40.png
MarkInOregon:
It began with women deacons at the time the New Testament letters and epistles were being written.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
Click to expand...
We are not supposed to be liturgical archeologists. The current use of female servers started without permission. Like so many other practices today the rebellious attitude of many is persecuting the faithful.

What do female deacons, who were never ordained, have to do with the current illicitness of so many practices that have crept into the holy sacrifice of the mass? The mass is not our private property.
 
I’d say that the most common abuse toward is irreverence towards the eucharist. Unfortunately in my experience the laity are simply following the example of their parish priests.

My PP has consecrated the precious blood in a glass carafe - which meant that the blood had to be poured into other chalices. My other (normal PP) refuses to genuflect at the consecration or bow to the tabernacle. I’ve seen hosts left on the floor of the sanctuary. I hate my parish.
 
40.png
CredoDownunder:
I’d say that the most common abuse toward is irreverence towards the eucharist. Unfortunately in my experience the laity are simply following the example of their parish priests.

My PP has consecrated the precious blood in a glass carafe - which meant that the blood had to be poured into other chalices. …I hate my parish.
Click to expand...
Wow. :ehh:
 
I couldn’t pick one of the above, I really don’t see much of that happening in our church.

The closest thing I could pick would have been children. There are kids that cry or make some noise, but it’s not overly distracting. Our priest sometimes says something, but he says it in a positive way - that he’s happy there’s so many babies, and that so many people choose life. He feels it’s the anti-abortion ad when the kids make a noise. And if a child is too loud, the parents do take them out pretty quickly, so I don’t think anyone can really complain too much about it, babies cry, it happens.

The thing that used to bother me was when people would receive communion, and then leave, not staying til the end of mass. Our parish got a new priest last spring, and he mentioned it the first week, and I don’t think it’s happened again (at least on a grand scale like it used to, maybe 1 or 2 people at the most) Our church is now packed from begining til the end of mass.
 
none of the choices listed in the poll are liturgical abuses, they are annoyances at best. very little of the other side issues brought up by other posters are true liturgical abuses. A liturgical abuse is grave, deliberate malicious disregard of the rubrics for the Mass and the Sacraments, with the intent of expressing dissent against those prescribed norms for liturgy and sacraments. An abuse is that practice which contains danger of rendering the sacraments especially the Eucharist illicit or invalid or both. By definition a liturgical abuse is practiced or encouraged by the priest (or bishop) who is the sole liturgist and is responsible for all liturgical actions. Irreverence, immodestly, inappropriate behavior on the part of members of the congregation is all those 3 plus a major pain in the neck, but not properly called liturgical abuse, unless it plays a direct part in the liturgical words and actions.
 
As a conservative catholic activist, bent on bringing back the church to the one true faith and mass, I believe the most common abuse at mass today is the Novus Ordo Mass itself. Case Closed and End of String. God bless!
 
I think the last box, Piety , or lack of it is the biggest abuse, the mass can be very beautiful, but something is missing in the mass today, cant quite put my finger on it, but have attended Traditional Masses and a totally different feeling comes over me. My opinion only though.
 
We have so much ridiculous stuff going on in CHurch today. The least of our worrys is guitars, drums and holding hands. All of these things are probably just subterfuge for the real problem.
 
40.png
Bill_A:
. All of these things are probably just subterfuge for the real problem.
Click to expand...
among the real problems being lack of charity and the lack of real Christian community.
 
40.png
coeyannie:
I think a good investment for some of you would be a good dictionary. There really is no excuse for all the atrocious spelling.
Click to expand...
Please, get off your high horse. The poor spelling and bad grammar on the board does nothing to detract from its content.
 
I am not familiar with any of these things that you describe. It is far better to concentrate on the Mass instead of worrying about whether you have received a homily or not.

The only thing that bothers me would have to be the fact that people do not turn off their mobile phones during the Mass.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
davy39:
I believe that leaving right after communion with out a good reason, (emergency, etc) is the most widespread. Sometimes the church looks half-empty after communion. I think that’s like telling Jesus that you don’t have any more time for him, so see you later. Very, very disrespectful.
Click to expand...
This is not a new problem. It used to happen when we had the Latin Mass in my childhood.

I do agree that it is very annoying to have people leaving early. On the other hand it is more annoying to be parked in when one is acting as a Minister of the Eucharist for the sick. To park a person in is the height of bad manners, but it is not an abuse.

MaggieOH
 
space ghost:
Probably paying too much attention to others instead of what’s going on… :cool:
Click to expand...
I agree and I would rephrase this response to read: paying to much attention to the possibility of mistakes being made instead of to the purpose of being at Mass.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
miguel:
How about when my 8 year old goes up to receive Holy Communion on her tongue, as is her option, and the lay EMHC invariably tries to give her a blessing because all the little kids go up to receive a blessing. They just assume she’s not receiving because she isn’t holding out her hand. When the EMHC finally wakes up to realize that she is receiving, an attempt is invariably made to place Our Lord in her hand. What’s up with that?:whacky:
Click to expand...
The real problem here is the positioning of the hands of the communicant who wants to receive on the tongue. If the child is crossing his or her arms then the lay minister might see that this is a sign of wanting a blessing and not the Eucharist.

It can be very confusing for a lay minister of the Eucharist, and yes even for a priest or deacon, if a person gives a mixed signal. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether the person is wanting to receive on the tongue or in the hand. If you know the person and you know that this person receives on the tongue then it is not a problem. If the child has its hands clasped but does not stick out his or her tongue then this can send a confusing message.

Also, when it comes to receiving on the tongue I do dislike to see communicants folding their arms in front, or for that matter placing their hands behind their bodies. The reason that I dislike it is that from the point of view of body language they are sending out the wrong signals, as though they are distancing themselves from Jesus when the opposite is the case. Just food for thought.

MaggieOH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top