Rate these liturgical abuses

[Petergee]

Nonsense - as a faithful Catholic you have a right to a licit and valid Mass. If the priest does NOT offer Mass in a licit manner in accordance with the approved texts, rubrics and allowed variations you have both a right and obligation to demand it. You are under no obligation to check with him first.

I will agree if you are unsure about the issue or if you would LIKE to hear him out, talking with him is appropriate. But, in no event is it required.

I will note, that I believe few people report the occasional lapse or minor stumble. What we’re talking about is the common and well known arrogant manhandling of the Mass in direct disregard for the texts and rubrics that has been a mainstay of many parishes for the past several decades. You may have no respect for someone who simply reports the priest but it appears from that comment you already have jettisoned your rights and obligations as a member of the faithful in a misplaced attempt at false charity or duty in the face of clerical hubris.

Remember, the priest who simply says the black and does the red never creates this sort of issue at all. The person at fault here - and yes the word is fault - is the priest who simply doesn’t or won’t do what he’s supposed to do.

Sorry I disagree (ironically considering the criticism that was made mof me earlier). We can’t simply assume that the priest is deliberately disbobeying what he know’s to be the Church’s directives. He may think that he’s allowed to do it, or perhaps not even be fully aware that he’s doing it.

And apart from anything else, the first thing the bishop is going to say when you report the illicit variation to him is “Did you ask Father why he was doing this, and what did he reply?”

Even our Lord told us that when one of our brothers does wrong we should first discuss it with him one-on-one, then if that doesn’t work bring in one or two others, and only when that doesn’t work should you report him to the Church.

 

[johnnykins]

Sorry I disagree (ironically considering the criticism that was made mof me earlier). We can’t simply assume that the priest is deliberately disbobeying what he know’s to be the Church’s directives. He may think that he’s allowed to do it, or perhaps not even be fully aware that he’s doing it.

And apart from anything else, the first thing the bishop is going to say when you report the illicit variation to him is “Did you ask Father why he was doing this, and what did he reply?”

Even our Lord told us that when one of our brothers does wrong we should first discuss it with him one-on-one, then if that doesn’t work bring in one or two others, and only when that doesn’t work should you report him to the Church.

You missed my point. You and I and every believer has the right to the Mass said in accordance with the texts and rubrics. Certainly if you don’t know, or are unsure of, the rules you may want to go to him first, but you are certainly not required to. I said that already. However, he may give you a bunch of mumbo jumbo why he’s right even when he is wrong. Thus you might decide to go right to the Bishop whose job it is to see that Mass is offered licitly. Also, as a matter of course, you may want to go first to the priest. But, you are under no obligation to do that. And, as I indicated, that has its own issues.

As for the Gospel,
New International Version (©1984)
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.”

No doubt there are other translations that may be less clear, but the key here is that the brother “sins against you.” It’s a reference to a personal grievance. In that context, it makes perfect sense.

Failure to offer Mass in a licit manner is not a personal issue - it’s a corporate or congregational issue. Its a sin against God and the Church. The Bishop is the appropriate person to deal with that - not you or me. Indeed, I would suggest that trying to correct the priest yourself may well be inappropriate in any situation.

 

[TheMc]

You missed my point. You and I and every believer has the right to the Mass said in accordance with the texts and rubrics. Certainly if you don’t know, or are unsure of, the rules you may want to go to him first, but you are certainly not required to. I said that already. However, he may give you a bunch of mumbo jumbo why he’s right even when he is wrong. Thus you might decide to go right to the Bishop whose job it is to see that Mass is offered licitly. Also, as a matter of course, you may want to go first to the priest. But, you are under no obligation to do that. And, as I indicated, that has its own issues.

As for the Gospel,
New International Version (©1984)
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.”

No doubt there are other translations that may be less clear, but the key here is that the brother “sins against you.” It’s a reference to a personal grievance. In that context, it makes perfect sense.

Failure to offer Mass in a licit manner is not a personal issue - it’s a corporate or congregational issue. Its a sin against God and the Church. The Bishop is the appropriate person to deal with that - not you or me. Indeed, I would suggest that trying to correct the priest yourself may well be inappropriate in any situation.

I second this post.

Petergee, in case you are wondering, johnnykins does is backed up by the church on this one:

*183. In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

184.Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.*

 

[Petergee]

You and I and every believer has the right to the Mass said in accordance with the texts and rubrics.

…
the key here is that the brother “sins against you.” It’s a reference to a personal grievance. In that context, it makes perfect sense.

Failure to offer Mass in a licit manner is not a personal issue - it’s a corporate or congregational issue. Its a sin against God and the Church.

I think you’ve contradicted yourself there. It is a personal issue for each and every member of the Church, because each of us has the right to the Mass said in accordance with the texts and rubrics.

 

[Petergee]

I second this post.

Petergee, in case you are wondering, johnnykins does is backed up by the church on this one:

*183. In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

184.Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.*

You seem to be interpreting the word “first” to mean “it must not be mentioned to anybody else before reporting it to the bishop.” But it doesn’t say that. In context “first” means that it can’t be submitted to the Pope until it has been submitted to the bishop and the bishop hasn’t adequately dealt with it. You’ll probably find the original Latin text clarifies this.

In addition to the Gospel injunction, Leviticus 19:17 says that if your brother commits any sin (against anyone -there is no “against you”), you must point it out to him and give him a chance to respond, if you don’t do this you are committing a sin yourself!

If the priest gives a “mumbo jumbo” response claiming that he’s right when you know he’s not, you should report that faulty response to the bishop as well.

 

[johnnykins]

I think you’ve contradicted yourself there. It is a personal issue for each and every member of the Church, because each of us has the right to the Mass said in accordance with the texts and rubrics.

No - As MEMBERS of the Church of Christ we have that right - as part of the Church. The failure to offer Mass in accordance with the texts and rubrics affects everyone and the Church, qua Church. The Gospel quote refers to issues between individuals.

 

[Spirithound]

No - As MEMBERS of the Church of Christ we have that right - as part of the Church. The failure to offer Mass in accordance with the texts and rubrics affects everyone and the Church, qua Church. The Gospel quote refers to issues between individuals.

Why do you think it is unreasonable to first go to the priest, as the principle of that Gospel quote would suggest?

 

[johnnykins]

Why do you think it is unreasonable to first go to the priest, as the principle of that Gospel quote would suggest?

I don’t and I didn’t say that - and you are misinterpreting the Gospel. You need to read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I think it may be appropriate to go to the Bishop first - but I certainly have left that open. My comment is you are neither under an obligation to go straight to the priest and there are reason you may not want to or it may be inappropriate to do so.

I wrote:

You are under no obligation to check with him first.

I repeat - you have no OBLIGATION. It has zip to do with being “reasonable.”

I also wrote:

I will agree if you are unsure about the issue or if you would LIKE to hear him out, talking with him is appropriate. But, in no event is it required.

So I have suggested it may be appropriate - but not REQUIRED. Whether that is reasonable or not I leave up to readers. Again, In any event it is not a requirement.

I also wrote:

Certainly if you don’t know, or are unsure of, the rules you may want to go to him first, but you are certainly not required to.

AND:

Thus you might decide to go right to the Bishop whose job it is to see that Mass is offered licitly. Also, as a matter of course, you may want to go first to the priest. But, you are under no obligation to do that. And, as I indicated, that has its own issues.

The same thing : NO OBLIGATION Now, in this quote there is an indication that you might want to go to the Bishop first. That is a statement that is closer to saying it’s reasonable to go to the Bishop first. That’s a very different matter from saying it’s unreasonable to go to the priest first. We know priests lie or are mistaken or have agendas; we know it is the Bishop who has the responsibility to see that the Mass is offered in accordance with the norms; it the Bishop to whom the priest has promised obedience. Lots and lots of reasons to go straight to the Bishop. Might you want to go to the priest? Yes, but you need not and there are reasons that may lead you decide not to do so.

As to the Gospel suggestion - it’s inapt. reread my prior posts.

 

[Petergee]

*Originally Posted by Spirithound *

Yes, you did actually say that, in post 42:

trying to correct the priest yourself may well be inappropriate in any situation.

Also you didn’t reply re the command in Leviticus that you must point out his sin to your brother, otherwise you are committing a sin yourself and you will be blamed for his sin, because you could have maybe prevented him from ciommitting the same sin again.

My comment is you are neither under an obligation to go straight to the priest and there are reason you may not want to or it may be inappropriate to do so.

I wrote: I repeat - you have no OBLIGATION. It has zip to do with being “reasonable.”

I also wrote: So I have suggested it may be appropriate - but not REQUIRED. Whether that is reasonable or not I leave up to readers. Again, In any event it is not a requirement.
… Lots and lots of reasons to go straight to the Bishop. Might you want to go to the priest? Yes, but you need not and there are reasons that may lead you decide not to do so.

Help me out here and give me at least one situation or reason for which it would be inappropriate to go to the priest first, because I sure can’t think of any. Except maybe if you already did so to the same priest about a similar matter and had got a very hostile and negative response from him and that you have no reason to doubt that he would do the same again.

Even leaving Scripture and religion aside, anyone is owed in natural justice the right to respond to any accusation made of wrongdoing by him, and given the chance to explain or to claim that it is a misunderstanding, or an innocent mistake, or to point out that he has some special pernmission to do it, or to admit he did wrong and promise not to do it again, or to give other plausible or valid reasons for his actions or any other response he may wish to make, which would either partly or fully excuse him or be held against him as a further offence.

 

[pageois]

*]The most important thing a priest is ordained for is to celebrate the Mass. .

Oh dear. I think if one takes Jesus at His word in the Gospels, there are many other (arguably, more) important things an ordained priest must attend to in living out the Christian mission. Ministering to the sick. Counselling the troubled. Providing practical assistance to the distressed. ‘Doing good is doing God’, as our own wonderful parish priest, Fr Bob McGuire, often says. Mass important? Of course. As important as living out the practical aspects of Christian life as articulated by Our Lord in the Gospels? I think not. God Bless.

 

[TheMc]

Oh dear. I think if one takes Jesus at His word in the Gospels, there are many other (arguably, more) important things an ordained priest must attend to in living out the Christian mission. Ministering to the sick. Counselling the troubled. Providing practical assistance to the distressed. ‘Doing good is doing God’, as our own wonderful parish priest, Fr Bob McGuire, often says. Mass important? Of course. As important as living out the practical aspects of Christian life as articulated by Our Lord in the Gospels? I think not. God Bless.

I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. There is nothing more important that a priest can do than to bring GOD down to us, to represent the sacrifice of calvary, and allow us to receive him into ourselves.

Clearly, you do not see the importance of the Mass.

Also, our lord gave his authority to the church. The gospels are not the only source of divine revelation. Sacred Tradition is also inspired. The church has always tough the highest thing anyone can do is celebrate or assist at Mass.

 

[TheMc]

You seem to be interpreting the word “first” to mean “it must not be mentioned to anybody else before reporting it to the bishop.” But it doesn’t say that. In context “first” means that it can’t be submitted to the Pope until it has been submitted to the bishop and the bishop hasn’t adequately dealt with it. You’ll probably find the original Latin text clarifies this.

In addition to the Gospel injunction, Leviticus 19:17 says that if your brother commits any sin (against anyone -there is no “against you”), you must point it out to him and give him a chance to respond, if you don’t do this you are committing a sin yourself!

If the priest gives a “mumbo jumbo” response claiming that he’s right when you know he’s not, you should report that faulty response to the bishop as well.

All I’m saying is that there is no obligation to see the priest first. The gospel injunction seems not to apply here, because in nearly every case, liturgical abuse is not a one on one thing. He is not just sinning against you, but the whole parish in many cases.

It is always appropriate to go to the bishop.

 

[johnnykins]

Yes, you did actually say that, in post 42:
Also you didn’t reply re the command in Leviticus that you must point out his sin to your brother, otherwise you are committing a sin yourself and you will be blamed for his sin, because you could have maybe prevented him from ciommitting the same sin again.

Oh dear - inappropriate and reasonable are two different words and ideas - sorry. If you want to say I said “inappropriate” say it - not something you think I said. Leviticus was not mentioned by Spirithound to whom I was responding - Matthew was. I didn’t respond to the Leviticus quote because it was not part of the issue with Spirithound. As for Leviticus - it never says when where or how you do that. Going to the Bishop may well be the appropriate way to point out his sin.

Help me out here and give me at least one situation or reason for which it would be inappropriate to go to the priest first, because I sure can’t think of any. Except maybe if you already did so to the same priest about a similar matter and had got a very hostile and negative response from him and that you have no reason to doubt that he would do the same again.

An egregious breach of the rubrics or invalidity may well be a circumstance where it is appropriate to go straight to the Bishop. Where the frequency of the breaches are so common it may be appropriate. Where you fear the priest is imbalanced may be another. Where sacrilege has happened is another. Where you simply want the proper authority to handle it may be another. etc., etc., etc.,

Even leaving Scripture and religion aside, anyone is owed in natural justice the right to respond to any accusation made of wrongdoing by him, and given the chance to explain or to claim that it is a misunderstanding, or an innocent mistake, or to point out that he has some special pernmission to do it, or to admit he did wrong and promise not to do it again, or to give other plausible or valid reasons for his actions or any other response he may wish to make, which would either partly or fully excuse him or be held against him as a further offence.

Take it out of this context - and put it in a work context. Say your boss at work is doing things you think are illegal. Must you go to him - or might you go to his boss - or another? No, there are certainly times in life when the proper authorities must be alerted to handle issue. Likewise with the Church and priests.

 

[johnnykins]

Oh dear. I think if one takes Jesus at His word in the Gospels, there are many other (arguably, more) important things an ordained priest must attend to in living out the Christian mission. Ministering to the sick. Counselling the troubled. Providing practical assistance to the distressed. ‘Doing good is doing God’, as our own wonderful parish priest, Fr Bob McGuire, often says. Mass important? Of course. As important as living out the practical aspects of Christian life as articulated by Our Lord in the Gospels? I think not. God Bless.

It’s all important - but only a priest can say Mass - he should do so in accordance with the rules. And it’s not hard to do that - just do it and there is no issue!!!

 

[pageois]

I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. There is nothing more important that a priest can do than to bring GOD down to us, to represent the sacrifice of calvary, and allow us to receive him into ourselves.

You don’t need another human being to bring God to you, my friend. Whenever two or more of us gather in His name, He is present. He said so, not me. Whether it’s in the majestic surrounds of a cathedral or in the dank atmosphere of a palliative hospice in a backstreet of Mumbai. He is present when two or more gather in His name. He promised us this in Matthew 18:20.

Priest or no priest.

God Bless.

 

[TheMc]

You don’t need another human being to bring God to you, my friend. Whenever two or more of us gather in His name, He is present. He said so, not me. Whether it’s in the majestic surrounds of a cathedral or in the dank atmosphere of a palliative hospice in a backstreet of Mumbai. He is present when two or more gather in His name. He promised us this in Matthew 18:20.

Priest or no priest.

God Bless.

What are you, a non catholic, doing in the L&S board criticizing catholics and what we believe?

Jesus gave his authority to the church, and the church has said the Mass is the most important event that will ever happen.