Universal Signal to object to abuse?

[diggerdomer]

It has never been unheard of in the Western tradition to have a separate Chapel of Reservation.

Exactly. Having the tabernacle on the altar or in the sanctuary is an acceptable option, but just that. There are equally legitimate reasons for having a separate chapel where the Tabernacle is. My experience is about 50/50 in the many Churches I have been to…some on the altar, some in a separate chapel. Both are legitimate, personal preferences notwithstanding.

 

[hopefull]

\I would NEVER go to a Mass there again while he is pastor.\

** I’m sure the pastor would be relieved to hear of your decision.

Tell us. Do you ever go to Mass simply to pray, rejoice with the angels and saints in the Liturgy, and receive the Eucharist?

Or has the role of liturgical policeman become your default practice?**

Do you ever answer posts except to be sarcastic and assume the worst of the poster? Do you ever read everything the poster wrote?

The lay person gave the homily/eulogy, period. Yes the deacon gave the proper intro to the gospel. I am not writing about “accidents.” They happen. There was no intro or even attempt at a homily before the lay woman got up. That’s what I meant. Sometimes, in exceptional circumstances (this was not one) a presider or deacon may give a partial homily and then defer to someone with a particular expertise, like a missionary nun seeking funding. That is exactly what I meant.

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the chapel, just that when one enters the church, or walks anywhere in the church there is no sign of even a sanctuary candle. How would one know even which way to face to acknowledge the Divine Presence?

There was no “soft repeating” just loud singing. Why do you restate what I wrote to make it less than what I wrote? Just what approved liturgy is it that which allows loud singing and a piano playing between the consecration of the bread and of the wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

There was nothing that even sounded like an acclamation, in any way, shape or form.

Why do you have such a hard time seeming to believe that there are liturgical abuses? Are you involved in some yourself? Or guilty for not protesting them? We DO have a right to faithful celebration of the Eucharist, your sarcasm notwithstanding. And, aside from the liturgical abuses, it was a nauseating display of presider performance instead of sacred worship. I do know the difference.

 

[diggerdomer]

How would one know even which way to face to acknowledge the Divine Presence?

As the Church teaches, reverencing the Altar is the appropriate gesture to acknowledge the divine presence if the reserved Eucharist is not present in the Tabernacle.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I would NEVER go to a Mass there again while he is pastor.\

** I’m sure the pastor would be relieved to hear of your decision.

Tell us. Do you ever go to Mass simply to pray, rejoice with the angels and saints in the Liturgy, and receive the Eucharist?

Or has the role of liturgical policeman become your default practice?**

Do you ever answer posts except to be sarcastic and assume the worst of the poster? Do you ever read everything the poster wrote?

The lay person gave the homily/eulogy, period. Yes the deacon gave the proper intro to the gospel. I am not writing about “accidents.” They happen. There was no intro or even attempt at a homily before the lay woman got up. That’s what I meant. Sometimes, in exceptional circumstances (this was not one) a presider or deacon may give a partial homily and then defer to someone with a particular expertise, like a missionary nun seeking funding. That is exactly what I meant.

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the chapel, just that when one enters the church, or walks anywhere in the church there is no sign of even a sanctuary candle. How would one know even which way to face to acknowledge the Divine Presence?

There was no “soft repeating” just loud singing. Why do you restate what I wrote to make it less than what I wrote? Just what approved liturgy is it that which allows loud singing and a piano playing between the consecration of the bread and of the wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

There was nothing that even sounded like an acclamation, in any way, shape or form.

Why do you have such a hard time seeming to believe that there are liturgical abuses? Are you involved in some yourself? Or guilty for not protesting them? We DO have a right to faithful celebration of the Eucharist, your sarcasm notwithstanding. And, aside from the liturgical abuses, it was a nauseating display of presider performance instead of sacred worship. I do know the difference.

1. Yes, I frequently am not sarcastic when the poster has said things that are deserving of respect, and yes I DID read all of your posts.

On the basis of your posts here, you never seem to be happy except when you have something to criticize.

1. Make up your mind. First you said the deacon did NOT give the intro to the Gospel, now you’re saying he did. Which is it?
2. As this was a requested daily mass (apparently) if the pastor wished a mourning mother to say something, while this is certainly unusual, it is better for him to err through mercy than through rigor.
3. If the Holy Gifts are not reserved at a given altar, there is generally NO sanctuary candle. Didn’t you know that?
4. You never answered my question about whether this was a special Eucharistic prayer that might well be through composed, calling for responses from the Congregation. I’ve seen several such, and they frequently call for the Priest to be accompanied (except at the Words of Institution).
5. It’s not that I have a hard time believing there are liturgical abuses. It’s that I have a hard time believing–yea, I am flaggergasted–that you have apparently appointed yourself the Grand Typicaris of the Latin Church by the very title of this thread!

Too often, as I’ve said, I’ve seen the words “liturgical abuse” to mean nothing more than “I dont like this.”

 

[hopefull]

In reply to each of your points (my reply in blue).

1. Yes, I frequently am not sarcastic when the poster has said things that are deserving of respect, and yes I DID read all of your posts. Everyone is deserving of respect, whether they are right or wrong.

On the basis of your posts here, you never seem to be happy except when you have something to criticize. Yes, I am distressed at seeing liturgical abuses and pseudo abuses. To be unhappy about that does NOT equate to never being happy except… Your conclusion is a fallacy in logic. Also, attributing motives or analyzing the character of posters is rather counterproductive to achieving any good for the Lord.

1. Make up your mind. First you said the deacon did NOT give the intro to the Gospel, now you’re saying he did. Which is it? You should read more carefully. I wrote: "The deacon read the gospel (as he should) but then with no “intro”,…THEN means after the gospel, THEN with no intro, the homily proceeded. If I’d meant it the way you chose to interpret I would have said "With no intro, the deacon read the gospel, although intro would hardly be the appropriate term.
2. As this was a requested daily mass (apparently) if the pastor wished a mourning mother to say something, while this is certainly unusual, it is better for him to err through mercy than through rigor. Again, I don’t feel you’ve read carefully; she was a daughter not a mother, and for the record her mother died 5 years ago.
3. If the Holy Gifts are not reserved at a given altar, there is generally NO sanctuary candle. Didn’t you know that? This has not been true in several other churhes I’ve been in, where the sanctuary candle has been outside the reservation chapel, and thus visible in the church, but thank you for the information.
4. You never answered my question about whether this was a special Eucharistic prayer that might well be through composed, calling for responses from the Congregation. I’ve seen several such, and they frequently call for the Priest to be accompanied (except at the Words of Institution). I don’t know what “through composed” means, but parts at least sounded familiar, some parts didn’t. Since I was not expecting this to happen, nor was I looking for it to happen, clearly I didn’t record it for later reference so I can’t quote you the words except the repetitive words of the choir (Good and Gracious God etc over and over…) that I’ve already mentioned.
5. It’s not that I have a hard time believing there are liturgical abuses. It’s that I have a hard time believing–yea, I am flaggergasted–that you have apparently appointed yourself the Grand Typicaris of the Latin Church by the very title of this thread!Well I am flabbergasted at how you seem to lack any self control and appoint yourself Grand Pooh-Bah of sarcasm. Read what other respondents wrote even when they gave a negative response to my question. Remember it WAS a question. They generously “taught” the right way to go about objecting, with sensitivity and with references. Just how does your sarcasm serve the Lord, I wonder?

Too often, as I’ve said, I’ve seen the words “liturgical abuse” to mean nothing more than “I dont like this.”

And, too often, I will add, those who abuse the liturgy and the Eucharist will resort to attacking the person who protests, rather than obediently fixing the errors.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Yes, I am distressed at seeing liturgical abuses and pseudo abuses.\

Are you saying you don’t know the difference between real abuses and what you merely think is an abuse (“pseudo abuses” in your words)?

\Well I am flabbergasted at how you seem to lack any self control and appoint yourself Grand Pooh-Bah of sarcasm.\

When I’m sarcastic, trust me, you’ll know it.

 

[hopefull]

\Yes, I am distressed at seeing liturgical abuses and pseudo abuses.\

**Are you saying you don’t know the difference between real abuses and what you merely think is an abuse (“pseudo abuses” in your words)?**No, I didn’t say that at all. That seems to be how you are trying to twist it.

\Well I am flabbergasted at how you seem to lack any self control and appoint yourself Grand Pooh-Bah of sarcasm.\

When I’m sarcastic, trust me, you’ll know it.

Trust you? No that would be the last thing I’d consider.

I have no desire to monopolize the conversation, so I will defer for the time being to others who have something more to add.

 

[Bbigam]

…and at another church little cookie thingies were distributed at communion which tasted sweet and couldn’t possibly be licit, perhaps not even valid matter.

I’m surprised no one else has picked up on this part - most of the abuses you list are not good and would annoy me, but concern for the validity of the Mass itself is quite serious. If nothing else you should follow up on this (charitably, carefully, politely). If it’s truly invalid, people there aren’t getting the Eucharist (or at least didn’t this one time) and possibly are worshipping cookies, which is idolatry - although I suppose they are not culpable if they don’t know it’s invalid.

A truly invalid Mass would be one of the few times I would seriously consider walking out of Mass (quietly). Other times would be extreme heresy from the ambo, or extreme disrespect toward/desecration of the Eucharist. (I don’t mean people forgetting to genuflect/kneel/bow etc.)

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
\Yes, I am distressed at seeing liturgical abuses and pseudo abuses.\

Are you saying you don’t know the difference between real abuses and what you merely think is an abuse (“pseudo abuses” in your words)?No, I didn’t say that at all. That seems to be how you are trying to twist it. \

**I beg your pardon. “Pseudo abuse” is YOUR term, not mine. YOU are the one who used it.

“Pseudo”, btw, is a prefix that means “false.” Therefore, it follows that “pseudo abuse” is something that one might THINK is an abuse, but is clearly NOT an abuse.

So I don’t know what you mean by “pseudo abuse”. Do you? If so, can you explain what you ARE saying?**

 

[Cat]

I’m surprised no one else has picked up on this part - most of the abuses you list are not good and would annoy me, but concern for the validity of the Mass itself is quite serious. If nothing else you should follow up on this (charitably, carefully, politely). If it’s truly invalid, people there aren’t getting the Eucharist (or at least didn’t this one time) and possibly are worshipping cookies, which is idolatry - although I suppose they are not culpable if they don’t know it’s invalid.

A truly invalid Mass would be one of the few times I would seriously consider walking out of Mass (quietly). Other times would be extreme heresy from the ambo, or extreme disrespect toward/desecration of the Eucharist. (I don’t mean people forgetting to genuflect/kneel/bow etc.)

Others more knowledgeable than I have explained what is necessary for a Mass to be invalid in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=405478 Please read through it–it’s very interesting.

Although some of the actions that were raised in the OP were objectionable, they apparently didn’t affect the validity of the Mass.

Although bpbasilphx seems to be making the OP upset, he makes some excellent points. Of course, we should be concerned and upset when things in the Mass appear awry or disrespectful. But as bpbasilphx keeps saying, we should not label these things “liturgically abusive” or assume that the Mass is invalid until we have searched the Church documents and/or asked an expert. A lot of things done in Masses are not what we are used to or what we personally prefer, but they are still liturgically correct and perfectly valid.

Finally, I’ll repeat what I said a few posts ago–it appears that the OP has taken the suggestions of several people in this thread and has decided on a simple letter to the bishop rather than making a public showing of objections. I personally think that the OP has made a wise and charitable decision and hope that the letter brings about any necessary corrections in the Masses without causing scandal or hurt.

 

[jeanannemarie]

The same demands of humility and charity would ask that we fail from judging the intentions of another based on a single post. It would be better to offer advice in fraternal charity that helps everyone draw closer to God; if one couldn’t do that, it would be holier to keep one’s mouth shut.

Establish a relationship with the Priest first before bringing attention to the problems. It’s much easier to brush off someone you don’t know, than if the Priest knows the Petitioner personally. If that doesn’t work, I find that writing politely to the Bishop of the diocese can be useful. Don’t expect a single letter to work wonders (none of us are that persuasive in our words), but don’t keep harping on the issue like a broken recorder (that’s the sure way to get yourself pigeon-holed in some political category). It is useful not simply to iterate the rubrics (Bishops are generally quite aware of the rubrics they don’t enforce), but explain how the liturgical abuse affects you and fellow Catholics. Plead and share, rather than preach and command (a lay person is not a Bishop, and Bishops don’t take scoldings well better than a rebellious teenager, unless he’s a Saint to start off with). Pragmatically, pick your issues to raise with the Bishop: no one likes to be told everything is wrong in his family. Most importantly, pray, fast, and pray.

Simply let the Bishop know if any Priest is blatently teaching heresy from the pulpit. You’ve done your job. Pray for Priests.

What a lovely and Christian spirited post! Thank you.

 

[Ockham]

What a lovely and Christian spirited post! Thank you.

And refreshing.

 

[Bbigam]

Others more knowledgeable than I have explained what is necessary for a Mass to be invalid in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=405478 Please read through it–it’s very interesting.

Although some of the actions that were raised in the OP were objectionable, they apparently didn’t affect the validity of the Mass.

Although bpbasilphx seems to be making the OP upset, he makes some excellent points. Of course, we should be concerned and upset when things in the Mass appear awry or disrespectful. But as bpbasilphx keeps saying, we should not label these things “liturgically abusive” or assume that the Mass is invalid until we have searched the Church documents and/or asked an expert. A lot of things done in Masses are not what we are used to or what we personally prefer, but they are still liturgically correct and perfectly valid.

Finally, I’ll repeat what I said a few posts ago–it appears that the OP has taken the suggestions of several people in this thread and has decided on a simple letter to the bishop rather than making a public showing of objections. I personally think that the OP has made a wise and charitable decision and hope that the letter brings about any necessary corrections in the Masses without causing scandal or hurt.

I agree overall with what you are saying here and also think the OP has made a good decision, but it sounds like there is a real concern that this one Mass may have been invalid:

…and at another church little cookie thingies were distributed at communion which tasted sweet and couldn’t possibly be licit, perhaps not even valid matter.

as according to a quote in the thread you linked to:

1. Valid matter. Meaning in this case (as Canon Law prescribes), the bread and wine must be pure wheat flour, unleavened, not mixed with additives such as honey, oil or whatnot, or at least not in discernible quantities. Ie if the bread TASTES like it has honey, olive oil or the like in it, you know it’s invalid. From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

§2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

I should clarify that when I said that the OP should follow up on this matter of validity, what I meant was that the OP should look into it more, including consult with a faithful expert priest, to find out if it really was invalid matter, which would be quite serious. I apologize for not being more clear on what I meant by this.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\…and at another church little cookie thingies were distributed at communion which tasted sweet and couldn’t possibly be licit, perhaps not even valid matter.\

**About this particular case:

There are some strains of wheat, and therefore flour, that are sweeter than others.

This might be what is being described here.

Then again, it could have been invalid matter to start with. I just don’t know, because I wasn’t there and certainly did not bake the matter used.

THIS would definitely be an abuse, I agree, and if it were invalid matter, would have made the Sacrifice invalid if knowingly used by the Priest.**