V
victrolatim
Guest
The author cites the specific Church rubrics being disregarded. That’s not an opinion.
- Status
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
It’s his opinion as to what makes the top ten and how prevalent those things are. It’s one man’s opinion…
P
pnewton
Guest
No, he does not cite the rubrics. He sites from notes, and doesn’t even use the same edition consistently. He had to go back to 1975 to make one point. That is extremely thin. As to the rubrics, the Code of Canon Law give the bishop of the diocese the authority to implement the liturgy in his diocese, not any lay person. It is inappropriate to call anything a bishop does in that role an abuse.
I have never cared much for lay liturgical policing. I have only known harm done by it and not seen any actual good myself. Others may have different experience.
A
AlNg
Guest
Al says it is a liturgical abuse.
Bob says it is not a liturgical abuse.
How do you know who to believe?
BTW, do you think it is a sin to engage in liturgical abuse, or is it perfectly OK and there is nothing wrong with going along with liturgical abuse?
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
There are rubrics and other authoritative church documents. That’s how you know.
Depends on your motive. Do you intend your abuse to be disrespectful toward God or legitimate authority? If so, that may be sinful. I doubt very many people fall into that category.
C
commenter
Guest
I would add “Children’s Liturgy of the Word”, the way it’s almost always done. Technically, the Children’s Lectionary is only supposed to be used by a priest or Deacon, during Mass…or perhaps by a layperson, during some kind of ceremony or lesson outside Mass.
The way it actually works is that a layperson leads children (in my parish it was anyone up to 8th grade!) out of the Sunday Mass. Then the layperson reads the readings, with children standing for the gospel, then the layperson gives the homily. They even lit candles!
The loophole is that the Children’s Lectionary had an imprimatur, even though that’s not what it was intended for.
The way it actually works is that a layperson leads children (in my parish it was anyone up to 8th grade!) out of the Sunday Mass. Then the layperson reads the readings, with children standing for the gospel, then the layperson gives the homily. They even lit candles!
The loophole is that the Children’s Lectionary had an imprimatur, even though that’s not what it was intended for.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
There are some things that are not prohibited but are questionable add-ons.
Historically candles were lit only for a sacramental purpose, the altar candles or Paschal candle, vigil candle. Many parishes argue that since Christ is also present in the Word, they light candles around the lectern.
I suppose since Christ also is present in the person of the priest, they could have a candle for the rectory…then a candle at the parish social Hall… perhaps a candle at the forest…
Better to omit those extra candles
Historically candles were lit only for a sacramental purpose, the altar candles or Paschal candle, vigil candle. Many parishes argue that since Christ is also present in the Word, they light candles around the lectern.
I suppose since Christ also is present in the person of the priest, they could have a candle for the rectory…then a candle at the parish social Hall… perhaps a candle at the forest…
Better to omit those extra candles
G
goout
Guest
I’m not one to get in a knot over liturgical correctness, but CLOW has become an issue.
In our parish the Children’s Liturgy of the Word gathers the children at the front of Church and leads them out behind a pole with streamers on it. I am not kidding. Not a crucifix or any vaguely religious symbol, a pole with streamers…,.,.
In the first place, children shouldn’t be leaving the Mass. On the one hand, we want greater Mass attendance from young people, and at the same time teaching them that not everyone is capable of participating in Mass at their own state in life!
We also have a lot of moaning about crying babies and providing child care outside Mass! Not sure who the bigger crybabies are, the youngsters or the middle aged empty-nesters.
If your parish isn’t crying, it’s dying.
Last edited:
J
Jessie
Guest
I think I could tick every one of those, including CLOW, and throw in intinction to boot. Or am I wrong on that? Do other people’s parishes do intinction too? Or instead of a homily, the priest throws the floor open to the congregation for their opinions /words of wisdom.
Last edited:
I’m wondering how most people define “liturgical abuse”.
To me, a liturgical abuse is a violation of the G.I.R.M. or of other documents which clarify the G.I.R.M. Bishops and archbishops have the power to grant exemptions for many, but not all, instructions and regulations.
But I suspect that many people consider the granting of exemptions to be abuses.
To me, a liturgical abuse is a violation of the G.I.R.M. or of other documents which clarify the G.I.R.M. Bishops and archbishops have the power to grant exemptions for many, but not all, instructions and regulations.
But I suspect that many people consider the granting of exemptions to be abuses.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
A
AlNg
Guest
So as long as you do not intend to be disrespectful, it is OK to engage in liturgical abuse?
That seems to be somewhat subjective. So there is no real objective standard or agreement on what is or what is not liturgical abuse ?
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I am not speaking in terms of Ok or not ok. I am talking about sinful or not sinful.mrsdizzyd:
So as long as you do not intend to be disrespectful, it is OK to engage in liturgical abuse?
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
It was a joke. Notice the emojis.
Yes, there are objective rules to what is and is not a “liturgical abuse”. However, on this forum, the word “abuse” is thrown around so much, it has come to be exactly what I said sometimes.
C
commenter
Guest
In my opinion, abuses are practices that are either explicitly forbidden, or that theologically undermine the celebration of the Mass. For instance, any practice that makes it appear that Extraordinary Ministers or other lay persons are semi concelebrating, or in some way helping consecrate, or that their role is in some way too prominent, based on seating, or when they receive, and consume the Eucharist.
There are other things I consider liturgical distractions. (“At St Joe’s Parish, we always do it this way”.)
Be cautious about these.
P
pnewton
Guest
Engage in? I do not think there are any bishops here. No, it is not a sin to follow one’s bishop and priest.
That is kind of the heart of this whole issue. The article is twenty years old. There seems to be a trend that the whole, “Is this an abuse?” threads have gotten thinner and weaker. What is now labeled and abuse seems less important than the past. Almost always that which is discussed is either less clear, a matter of taste, or some pet peeve that has been approved by the bishop. This trend tells me that true innovative abuses are more rare and not much of a problem any more.
C
commenter
Guest
Intentional abuses by clergy are much rather, because liberal stopped entering the seminaries a few decades ago. The generation of priests prone to this is dying off.
But there are many places that have no resident pastor or school chaplain. Rotating priests pop in and out, whoever they can get this time. Laity who may or may not know better sometimes allow or do questionable things.
Z
Zach
Guest
On point 4) the homily. Recently on a Saturday evening Sunday obligation Mass the priest skipped the homily altogether because he had a bad reaction from a vaccine and was ill. I suppose this falls under if it’s out of the priests’ control it’s not an abuse to skip the obligation day homily, just as if a parishioner is ill it’s not a sin to miss Mass on an obligation day.
On the part about the homily being said only in the sanctuary some priests like to walk out of the sanctuary and closer to the pews.
On the part about the homily being said only in the sanctuary some priests like to walk out of the sanctuary and closer to the pews.
A
Asinner
Guest
Unfortunately I still see #1, the most bothersome and common one, too often. “Say the black, do the red” should not be that hard.
Thankfully I’ve never seen “liturgical dance” at Mass, and I hope I never will!
Thankfully I’ve never seen “liturgical dance” at Mass, and I hope I never will!
Z
Zach
Guest
The article says lectors sometimes use the unapproved NRSV or another unapproved translation. What translation is used for the readings? Whatever it is I can’t imagine a lector not following that. I read along all the time and never recall the lector reading different translations from the one in the missalette.
Last edited:
- Status