Some folks too hard on lit abuse issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fullsizesedan

Guest
What some Catholics are forgetting is that the entire liturgical scene has changed rather dramatically since the 60s and the Vatican council.

My folks took us to a couple of masses for deceased relations back then, and back then of course the people mostly remained completely quiet, while the priest and altar boys said the prayers. A total change of paradigm since then, with the people given various long prayers to read, it got to be expected that some people will be behind on the learning curve, for untrained individuals of various competencies in English and reading ability to be able to read them exactly right all of the time within a single generation is unrealistic.

Huge changes take a while to digest, particularly when the goal is to train a billion people instead of just 1/10 of 1% of that number when changes come down.

A lot of what is termed “lit abuse” is really no more than just folks behind the learning curve.
 
I agree somewhat, however I believe what hurts people most are deliberate abuses that are most often a ‘silver bullet’ from some ideology or ‘movement’ attempting to gain ground in the Church. I won’t need to explain any further once I mention gay rights and radical feminism, or perhaps the sexual revolution, or the enlightenment, darwinism, fundamentalism…

sheesh, nevermind, Satan works in so many different ways. 😉
 
Yes I do agree to some extent. The Church did a poor job in many places of teaching the “what and why” of the liturgical changes implimented after Vatical II. We are again seeing this with the new GIRM and Liturgy Instruction. Many parishes are simply ignoring them which make for great confusion when the faithful travel from place to place. Many parishes implimented some of the required changes and ignored others. Some parishes simply made the changes without any explaination what-so-ever. Adult Catechesis is necessary in every parish. These changes must be explained and understood in the context of the Churches teaching about the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.

Ps. Howmany documents have come out in the last several years about the Eucharist, Sunday Mass, and other important topics that many pastors simply say don’t exist. Or my not so favorite answer from pastors is, “They are over there, we are over here!” AHHHHhhh
 
I think many of these abuses are done in good conscience by those initiating them, thinking it’s ok, or it would help in worship. The corrections for these I think are simpler. Understanding the why’s and the what’s will help them see that the church has norms for a good reason.

I think other abuses are the result of an “I don’t agree with that” mentality, thinking that they know better than the church. The church will eventually catch up and see the light, type of thing. These are much more dangerous for everyone, in that it is a rebellion from the authority of the church. Sometimes it comes in subtle ways, but others it is much more blatant.

I think people nowadays (generally) have little regard for the authority of the church. This manifests itself in numerous ways and hinders spiritual growth and fruit.

:twocents:
 
40.png
UnknownCloud:
I agree somewhat, however I believe what hurts people most are deliberate abuses that are most often a ‘silver bullet’ from some ideology or ‘movement’ attempting to gain ground in the Church.
Definitely had one of those. In the prayer intentions, had the prayed for the Intercession of the Holy Spirit, that “She might lead the Church and the world.” Nearly jumped out of my pew.
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Definitely had one of those…
Me too. The “agenda-motivated” abuses are the ones that I believe are truly the work of Satan. I am thinking of two different Churches that regularly had women giving the homily (some of whom were nuns who should have known better).
 
I’ll be a dissenter here.

I don’t at all think it’s a matter of changes in the liturgy taking time to be absorbed. It’s been a third of a century already. How long does it take to understand that ad libbing the Eucharistic prayer is not permitted and that it isn’t okay to have 15 extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to accommodate a mere 200 communicants (as is the case at the parish closest to my home)?

There is nothing complicated about the rubrics. If a priest can’t understand them, his mental capacities are so modest that he ought not to have been ordained in the first place. If the people in the pews can’t understand them, it’s because no one has bothered to tell them about the rules.

And this, I think, is the real problem. Parishioners have not been instructed (it would take only a few minutes from the pulpit), while priests who certainly know what they should be doing cavalierly decided to modify the Mass in their own image.
 
Right on Karl!

If I can purchase the GIRM and in within a few minutes find variations from the norm, what does that tell us about pastoral concerns regarding the liturgy. It doesn’t take a Masters Degree in Theology to read the Instruction. Either those that abuse the liturgy don’t care or they choose to defy the norms.

I am fortunate to belong to a parish that is trying very hard to conform. Although, due to our massive size (9500 families), we seemed to be forced to use large numbers of extraordinary ministers and girl altar servers. The pastor has attempted, with moderate success, to bring the parishioners into conformity. Although some abuses still occur.
 
40.png
Fullsizesedan:
What some Catholics are forgetting is that the entire liturgical scene has changed rather dramatically since the 60s and the Vatican council.

My folks took us to a couple of masses for deceased relations back then, and back then of course the people mostly remained completely quiet, while the priest and altar boys said the prayers. A total change of paradigm since then, with the people given various long prayers to read, it got to be expected that some people will be behind on the learning curve, for untrained individuals of various competencies in English and reading ability to be able to read them exactly right all of the time within a single generation is unrealistic.

Huge changes take a while to digest, particularly when the goal is to train a billion people instead of just 1/10 of 1% of that number when changes come down.

A lot of what is termed “lit abuse” is really no more than just folks behind the learning curve.
Nonsense. Absolutely absurd.

Just take a look at the horrific liturgical abuses that people have expressed within this forum. They has nothing to do with Vatican Council II. These abuses spring essentially from:

Clergy and laity placing their own desires and agendas ahead of God and His Church.

Poor (or nonexistant) priestly/diaconate formation and catechesis of the laity.

Effete leadership from some bishops who obviously have no business being bishops.


Using the excuse of “Vatican II” or “the spirit of Vatican II” is as retrograde as it is preposterous.
 
Karl Keating:
I’ll be a dissenter here.

I don’t at all think it’s a matter of changes in the liturgy taking time to be absorbed. It’s been a third of a century already. How long does it take to understand that ad libbing the Eucharistic prayer is not permitted and that it isn’t okay to have 15 extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to accommodate a mere 200 communicants (as is the case at the parish closest to my home)?

There is nothing complicated about the rubrics. If a priest can’t understand them, his mental capacities are so modest that he ought not to have been ordained in the first place. If the people in the pews can’t understand them, it’s because no one has bothered to tell them about the rules.

And this, I think, is the real problem. Parishioners have not been instructed (it would take only a few minutes from the pulpit), while priests who certainly know what they should be doing cavalierly decided to modify the Mass in their own image.
Cue the Theme Music for the New Evangelization 👍
 
Here’s a question – if people believe that liturgical abuse isn’t such a big deal and that format of the Mass is really just a matter of taste, why don’t they just follow the rubrics, for the sake of people who think it does matter? For example, say you think the Penitential Rite is nice, but not that important. Why not just say it then – what is gained by omitting it? What is made better by the priest adlibbing the Eucharistic prayer?
 
40.png
bquinnan:
Here’s a question – if people believe that liturgical abuse isn’t such a big deal and that format of the Mass is really just a matter of taste, why don’t they just follow the rubrics, for the sake of people who think it does matter? For example, say you think the Penitential Rite is nice, but not that important. Why not just say it then – what is gained by omitting it? What is made better by the priest adlibbing the Eucharistic prayer?
Ego, ignorance and arrogance. Not necessarily in that order.
 
karl writes*There is nothing complicated about the rubrics. If a priest can’t understand them, his mental capacities are so modest that he ought not to have been ordained in the first place. If the people in the pews can’t understand them, it’s because no one has bothered to tell them about the rules.

And this, I think, is the real problem. Parishioners have not been instructed (it would take only a few minutes from the pulpit*

I’m sure they aren’t that terribly complicated, but not every person has the same attention to detail, which is the essense of the rules. And when they are only acting as an EMHC, reader or other role for just an hour a week, its a tough learn for I would guess most people.

I’m guess (although not sure) that prospective EMHC’s are given written instructions or a manual on what to do. But even then, if the written instructions are to turn left toward the altar at a certain point, and the EMHC ahead of them turns right in error, do they follow?

Its just an enormously rough thing to coordinate particularly among a strictly part time volunteer force, what to do when something goes wrong , if someone else doesn’t do what they are supposed to do, etc.

And I bet a lot of volunteers only skim the written instructions, the human nature of the situation is to rely on doing what the others are doing, fine if they are doing the right thing and you’re observant, but something else which could lead to irregularities and technical abuses.
 
40.png
Fullsizesedan:
I’m sure they aren’t that terribly complicated, but not every person has the same attention to detail, which is the essense of the rules. And when they are only acting as an EMHC, reader or other role for just an hour a week, its a tough learn for I would guess most people.
I wasn’t writing about extraordinary ministers, lectors, or ushers for that matter. I was writing about the folks in the pews–the ones who, during the sign of peace, shouldn’t leave their places to shake hands with people across the aisle; the ones who shouldn’t hold hands at the Our Father; the ones who shouldn’t chat in church; the ones who shouldn’t walk by the tabernacle without a genuflection; the ones who shouldn’t neglect to bow toward the altar; the ones shouldn’t chew gum just before getting in the Communion line.

Those are the folks I was writing about.

Each of those things is easily correctable. All it would take is clear and simple instruction from the pulpit. Not one of those things has an intellectual component that would tax a child. The fix might even involve a little show and tell: “Here’s how you genuflect before the tabernacle: down on the right knee, like this.”

On the other hand, when it comes to extraordinary ministers, the abuses associated with that office almost never arise from the lay people who participate. The chief abuse is the over-use of extraordinary ministers.

As for lectors, the chief abuse is not incompetence in reading (which is not really an abuse, but it is a shame); it is the changing of the words of the official readings (either on their own volition or through caving in to pressure from the priest).

The large majority of abuses at Mass come from the man behind the altar, but a good number come from the people in the pews. Those latter abuses could be corrected easily if the priest spoke up. That never happens, though, in parishes where the priest engages in his own liturgical abuses.
 
For those that are still not convinced that many abuses are deliberate, let me just explain briefly what happened recently in my parish.

After a few months of putting up with liturgy abuse and the like, I finally scheduled a meeting with the priest and the DRE. I addressed some of my concerns, like omition of the Creed and penitential rite, and the replacement of the Our Father with a musician’s substitute, and basically I got the ‘Church of Rome strayed from the real Gospel when Constantine elevated the Chruch to a high political status’ excuse. Where have we heard that before? 😉

In my experience then, if you press the issues with the offenders, you may find out more than you would like - as in my case, which was clear dissent from the Chruch (actually, clear heresy).

Now have to do even more investigating and writing letters to make sure my community is even receiving valid sacrements.
 
Also it is important to note that Chrch law requires “Lay ministers” be properly formed, instructed and trained prior to performing any ministry. “Skimming the instructions” does not cut it.
 
40.png
UnknownCloud:
For those that are still not convinced that many abuses are deliberate, let me just explain briefly what happened recently in my parish.

After a few months of putting up with liturgy abuse and the like, I finally scheduled a meeting with the priest and the DRE. I addressed some of my concerns, like omition of the Creed and penitential rite, and the replacement of the Our Father with a musician’s substitute, and basically I got the ‘Church of Rome strayed from the real Gospel when Constantine elevated the Chruch to a high political status’ excuse. Where have we heard that before? 😉

In my experience then, if you press the issues with the offenders, you may find out more than you would like - as in my case, which was clear dissent from the Chruch (actually, clear heresy).

Now have to do even more investigating and writing letters to make sure my community is even receiving valid sacrements.
Your bishop should be told of this in a formal letter. No Catholic (let alone a priest) should be spewing such ludicrous ideas.
 
40.png
Fullsizesedan:
karl writesThere is nothing complicated about the rubrics. If a priest can’t understand them, his mental capacities are so modest that he ought not to have been ordained in the first place. If the people in the pews can’t understand them, it’s because no one has bothered to tell them about the rules.

And this, I think, is the real problem. Parishioners have not been instructed (it would take only a few minutes from the pulpit


I’m sure they aren’t that terribly complicated, but not every person has the same attention to detail, which is the essense of the rules. And when they are only acting as an EMHC, reader or other role for just an hour a week, its a tough learn for I would guess most people.

I’m guess (although not sure) that prospective EMHC’s are given written instructions or a manual on what to do. But even then, if the written instructions are to turn left toward the altar at a certain point, and the EMHC ahead of them turns right in error, do they follow?

Its just an enormously rough thing to coordinate particularly among a strictly part time volunteer force, what to do when something goes wrong , if someone else doesn’t do what they are supposed to do, etc.

And I bet a lot of volunteers only skim the written instructions, the human nature of the situation is to rely on doing what the others are doing, fine if they are doing the right thing and you’re observant, but something else which could lead to irregularities and technical abuses.
So drastically downsize the number of EMHCs used at each Mass. Much easier to train and coordinate smaller numbers of volunteers…
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Definitely had one of those. In the prayer intentions, had the prayed for the Intercession of the Holy Spirit, that “She might lead the Church and the world.” Nearly jumped out of my pew.
It is a mistake to anthropomorphize God. The Paraclete, Creator, and Messiah are not limited to human conceptions of sexuality, and it is not our place to define them by our standards. “God the Father” is most assuredly NOT a biological male, and such an idea would make “Him” similar to a Greek god such as Zeus. The image of God as a male may be a useful metaphor to help us in our limited understanding in relation to an infinite God, but it should in no way become a limitation on God.

The Bible contains female as well as male imagery of God, and we have no right to place constraints on the Divine based on our own paternalistic view of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top