Please help...are these liturgical abuses?

[graceandglory]

Went to Mass on vacation.

The priest didn’t give the homily. Instead it was a young lady who is the liturgical director for the bishop in the Archdiocese who gave the “reflection.” It could have been an address at a graduation. No explanation of the readings, no call to holiness.

In the Prayers of the Faithful, they sort of left something out.

“We pray”
instead of
“We pray to the Lord.”

That’s nice for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish generic prayer service,
but this was MASS!! We’re Catholic!

Certainly the wrong vessels were used for the bread and wine. The many EHMCs were the ones who partitioned out the hosts and the blood into the cups. That’s pretty normal.

Perhaps it’s the Archdiocese, but there was no kneeling during Mass. Everyone stood during the whole Eucharistic Prayer.

The part that really got me was that there was no Ecce Agnus Dei.

When the priest held up the host and the cup, he did not say,
This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper

He did not mention that it had anything to do with taking away sin. I wasn’t even sure it was legit.

So, to sum up:

1. Standing during Eucharistic Prayer
2. Wrong vessels
3. Priest didn’t give homily, a lady did.
4. “We Pray” instead of “we pray to the Lord”
5. No “This is the Lamb of God.”

On the other hand. It was a blessing and I was overjoyed to be attending Mass for the first time ever with my only Catholic relatives in the US, and being able to be at Mass with a dear relative who has been away from Mass for her whole adult life. Please pray for her to come back to the Church.

 

[theistgal]

So, to sum up:

1. Standing during Eucharistic Prayer
2. Wrong vessels
3. Priest didn’t give homily, a lady did.
4. “We Pray” instead of “we pray to the Lord”
5. No “This is the Lamb of God.”

Based on my limited qualifications as a liturgist and theologian , I’d say:

1. Not necessarily (I’m Byzantine Catholic and we stand thru everything)
2. Not necessarily (maybe they’ve purchased the correct ones but haven’t gotten them yet so are using the old ones - gotta give 'em the benefit of the doubt)
3. Probably - there are some pretty strict rules on who can and can’t give a homily. If she needed to speak, perhaps she could have done so after the Mass.
4. Not necessarily (maybe they just forgot; forgetfulness isn’t an abuse)
5. Yeah, he should have said that.

 

[malphono]

… Certainly the wrong vessels were used for the bread and wine. …
2. Wrong vessels …

Exactly what kind of vessels were used? Unless I missed something, it’s not clear.

 

[porthos11]

Based on my limited qualifications as a liturgist and theologian , I’d say:

1. Not necessarily (I’m Byzantine Catholic and we stand thru everything)

theistgal was describing, I believe, a Roman Rite Mass. Kneeling is universally required, and so, yes, that’s an abuse, and a major one.

 

[theistgal]

theistgal was describing, I believe, a Roman Rite Mass. Kneeling is universally required, and so, yes, that’s an abuse, and a major one.

Well, I did say I was limited!

I do know that even in the Roman Rite Mass, standing during the Eucharistic prayer is sometimes permitted in certain extreme circumstances (for example, when kneeling would be difficult, as in a super-large crowd in a super-small room). However, yes, ordinarily it is required in the Latin Rite.

 

[Corki]

Certainly the wrong vessels were used for the bread and wine. The many EHMCs were the ones who partitioned out the hosts and the blood into the cups. That’s pretty normal.

Not sure about the vessels without more information. Even with the new restrictions, there is still quite a bit of variety in material and style allowed.

BUT the EMHCs should not be involved in the fractioning. In fact, the wine is to be poured before the Consecration and the EMHCs shouldn’t even be near the altar at that part of Mass. That’s a serious liturgical abuse.

 

[benedictgal]

This will take several posts to answer, but, here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes regarding the homily:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,142 “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.143 In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.144

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1.145 This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.146

Given that the woman is supposed to serve as the director of Divine Worship (new term) for the Archdiocese, she should have known better, as should have the priest and, ultimately, the Metropolitan (Archbishop).

During the Fraction Rite (the distribution of the Body of Christ), this is to be done by the celebrant and/or deacon:

[73.] In the celebration of Holy Mass the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread - done only by the Priest celebrant, if necessary with the help of a Deacon or of a concelebrant - begins after the exchange of peace, while the Agnus Dei is being recited. For the gesture of breaking bread “carried out by Christ at the Last Supper, which in apostolic times gave the whole Eucharistic action its name, signifies that the faithful, though they are many, are made one Body in the communion of the one Bread of Life who is Christ, who died and rose for the world’s salvation” (cf. I Cor 10:17).153 For this reason the rite must be carried out with great reverence.154 Even so, it should be brief. The abuse that has prevailed in some places, by which this rite is unnecessarily prolonged and given undue emphasis, with laypersons also helping in contradiction to the norms, should be corrected with all haste.155

The issue of the Sacred Vessls is also addressed in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.205 The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,206 so that honor will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.207

This pretty much supercedes what had previously been in place.

In another post, I’ll try to hit on some of the other items that you have noted.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, I did say I was limited!

I do know that even in the Roman Rite Mass, standing during the Eucharistic prayer is sometimes permitted in certain extreme circumstances (for example, when kneeling would be difficult, as in a super-large crowd in a super-small room). However, yes, ordinarily it is required in the Latin Rite.

Yes, ordinarily.

I guess the question isn’t necessarily “are these things wrong?”, as they seem to be, but “what to do about them?”

 

[porthos11]

Well, I did say I was limited!

I do know that even in the Roman Rite Mass, standing during the Eucharistic prayer is sometimes permitted in certain extreme circumstances (for example, when kneeling would be difficult, as in a super-large crowd in a super-small room). However, yes, ordinarily it is required in the Latin Rite.

Everything is always excusable for a just reason. Typically, in a parish church, there is no reason for standing en masse during the Consecration. Not even the lack of kneelers.

 

[theistgal]

Yes, ordinarily.

I guess the question isn’t necessarily “are these things wrong?”, as they seem to be, but “what to do about them?”

Well, if you’re travelling, unfortunately there’s not a whole lot you can do other than (a) do some research ahead of time, so you can find a more suitable church or (b) if no time for that and you find yourself in such a situation, write to the Bishop of that diocese when you get home.

(Oh yeah, and I forgot (c) pray for them! )

 

[Phemie]

Went to Mass on vacation.

In the Prayers of the Faithful, they sort of left something out.

“We pray”
instead of
“We pray to the Lord.”

That’s nice for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish generic prayer service,
but this was MASS!! We’re Catholic!

There’s nothing wrong with “We pray:” instead of “We pray to the Lord.”

After all, we respond “Lord, hear our prayer” or “Lord, hear us” so it’s not as if anyone could mistake to whom we are praying. In fact, the Prayers of the Faithful in my Rite of Baptism are written exactly that way.

 

[malphono]

Well, if you’re travelling, unfortunately there’s not a whole lot you can do other than (a) do some research ahead of time, so you can find a more suitable church or (b) if no time for that and you find yourself in such a situation, write to the Bishop of that diocese when you get home.

(Oh yeah, and I forgot (c) pray for them! )

For my two cents:

option (a) is only partially workable. One might find information that says a particular parish is “orthodox” but think about it: how many parishes actually advertise that they offer liturgical abuses? Just picture a listing that says: come worship here (at parish “X”) because we have “interpretive dancers” at every Mass."
option (b) is fine but the bishop is not likely to ever see the correspondence. Most likely it will be shredded by the secretary upon arrival, if for no other reason than the sender is from another jurisdiction.
option (c) is perfect. They definitely need the prayers.
option (d) is really part of option (b) and is mine: Seems to me there is one thing to be done: if what one finds himself/herself faced with are true liturgical abuse, leave. Better, I think, to do that (and if one cannot find another church and feels that he/she has to confess “missing Mass” later, please, by all means) than just sit there fuming the whole while. When one is not “at peace” one is not properly disposed to the Sacrament.

True and blatant abuses can have that effect, and I emphasize true and blatant abuses. For example: probably the worst abuse I’ve ever seen was a “chips & coke” fest (actually more than one, and they went well beyond “abuse” since they were invalid) but there have been others: “come on up everybody and stand around the table with me,” or passing the cup (should be Chalice, but that’s a stretch) around one to the next, or Protestant preachers, or using crystal and china instead of chalice and paten, or the “interpretive dancers” etc etc. No, I’m not joking about any of these: yes, I’ve seen them all, and yes, I walked out of them all.

 

[theistgal]

For my two cents:

option (a) is only partially workable. One might find information that says a particular parish is “orthodox” but think about it: how many parishes actually advertise that they offer liturgical abuses? Just picture a listing that says: come worship here (at parish “X”) because we have “interpretive dancers” at every Mass."

Yes, wouldn’t that be convenient? (and by the way, sometimes you can pretty much see the abuses on their websites: stalphonsusrock.org/site/ChurchPictures/tabid/55/Default.aspx - click thru to the 6th photo )

However, what I had in mind was more like: come here to CAF or some other Catholic discussion board, and ask for recommendations from people who live in that area.

 

[malphono]

Yes, wouldn’t that be convenient? (and by the way, sometimes you can pretty much see the abuses on their websites: stalphonsusrock.org/site/ChurchPictures/tabid/55/Default.aspx - click thru to the 6th photo )

However, what I had in mind was more like: come here to CAF or some other Catholic discussion board, and ask for recommendations from people who live in that area.

Now I get it. Oh, my but photo 6 is rather telling of what one might expect, isn’t it? Shame too: other than being a bit too in debt to its florist, the church itself doesn’t seem to be too terrible. (Well, a lot better than some I’ve seen.)