What do you consider liturgical abuses?

[thequeen]

what I consider to be liturgical abuse is irrelevant.
There are church documents that govern Mass and the sacraments, so I rely on the priest, whose job it is to interpret and apply those documents and celebrate liturgy, to define what is and is not abuse. As long as I don’t witness anything that clearly invalidates the Eucharist, I roll with it. Personal preference is not the determinant of abuse.

Well explained puzzleanie thank you for all your posts they are always so informative.

 

[Corki]

I agree with you. The issue I have at my parish is the giant mural of Mary at the center of the sanctuary and Jesus is off to the side. If I am correct, the mural of Mary needs to be concealed and Jesus must be at the center? I could be incorrect?

First of all, Church decor is not covered in the documents on liturgical abuse. There are other documents about what can and cannot be in a Church building.

Secondly, there is no rule that a mural of Mary cannot be in the center of the Sactuary. Many Church’s have Mary as patroness. One I visited recently is Mary of the Holy Rosary and has a beautiful ceiling painting of Mary giving the Rosary to St. Dominic. It’s right above and behind the altar.

I am not sure what you mean by “concealed”. Covering up a mural of Mary would be inappropriate outside of Lent.

Threre is no rule about a picture of Jesus being in the center either. The only rule is that there must be a crucifix with Christ crucified in the Sactuary during Mass.

 

[Sunbreak]

I think some abuses are fairly obvious and sometimes the priest is the one who is condoning the abuse. I remember being in one parish for a mass where everyone (smaller group of maybe 20-25 people) was invited to gather around the altar at communion time. Communion was not distributed as such - instead, a plate of consecrated hosts was passed around from one person to the next like you were passing cookies to the next person in your living room. I’d call that abuse and the priest was obviously there encouraging this way of doing things.

 

[laszlo]

Here is th official document what constitutes liturgical abuse

catholic.com/library/redemptionis_sacramentum.asp

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.[18] This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

 

[nickybr38]

Sometimes I wonder if most of the ‘abuses’ people see aren’t the result of a lack of proper education. For example, some of the things that go on at our Masses that perhaps aren’t entirely proper are the result of Eastern priests being thrown into Western rites. They’re not entirely sure how things work in the Western rites so they just ask the lay people to help them but the lay people have never been properly educated.

 

[Nicea325]

First of all, Church decor is not covered in the documents on liturgical abuse. There are other documents about what can and cannot be in a Church building.

I agree.

Secondly, there is no rule that a mural of Mary cannot be in the center of the Sactuary. Many Church’s have Mary as patroness. One I visited recently is Mary of the Holy Rosary and has a beautiful ceiling painting of Mary giving the Rosary to St. Dominic. It’s right above and behind the altar.

Okay, but is the ceiling cosidered part of the the sanctuary? As for the mural of Mary at my church? I need to look it up to check if it is correct or not. I am not saying you are wrong,but the problem is that it becomes the center of attention and focus. One of the priest once said imagine what a Protestant would think: See Mary is the center of their worship. I agree with the priest to an extent. As Catholics we know we do not worship Mary,but to an outsider more than likely that comes into his/her mind.

I am not sure what you mean by “concealed”. Covering up a mural of Mary would be inappropriate outside of Lent.

It was covered with a large banner and the color in accordance with the liturgical calendar.

Threre is no rule about a picture of Jesus being in the center either. The only rule is that there must be a crucifix with Christ crucified in the Sactuary during Mass.

Well I would not deem a picture of Jesus at the center an issue because He is the center of attention.

 

[Godfollower]

What was stated was

In one parish all the people sing: In him, with him, through him in the unity of the Holy Spirit (whatever the words are) along with the priest.

The point I was trying to make is that there are varying levels of failure to follow the rubrics. Yes, rules are rules; but Jesus’ entire ministry dealt with the pharisaic problem of well-meaning church-goers getting exercised about form over substance, and we should be careful not to fall into the same trap.

Let’s say an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion cleans the chalice after Communion. That’s prohibited (because it’s reserved to the priest, and the indult that had allowed extraordinary ministers to purify the vessels has expired). Do we really need to burn down the church as a result? No; life’s too short. Someone involved (the pastor; a sacristan; an extraordinary minister who just finished the training) should correct the practice, by all means; but it is most emphatically not the same thing as having the deacon conduct the consecration.

And, if members of the congregation – or the entire congregation, as the case may be – are reciting parts of the Mass reserved to the priest, then, yes: that should be corrected. But it is by no means the same thing as using beer and pretzels for Communion instead of bread and wine.

Basically what I’m saying is that, sometimes on CAF, people who cry “Abuse!” are acting like child-protective service people demanding that parents be imprisoned for swatting a child who ran into traffic. There are lots of violations of the rubrics. Maybe we could concentrate on the ones that matter, and leave the others to the people who actually hold jobs requiring them to deal with the others.

Vita parum brevis est.

 

[Godfollower]

true, automatic absolution if you bash the choir director when she starts with Peace is flowing like a river.

Aaaarrgghhhhhh! Earworm!!!

:bigyikes:

 

[if_youCthispray]

what I consider to be liturgical abuse is irrelevant.
There are church documents that govern Mass and the sacraments, so I rely on the priest, whose job it is to interpret and apply those documents and celebrate liturgy, to define what is and is not abuse. As long as I don’t witness anything that clearly invalidates the Eucharist, I roll with it. Personal preference is not the determinant of abuse.

Right, cause priests have never been wrong before.

 

[cothrige]

what I consider to be liturgical abuse is irrelevant.
There are church documents that govern Mass and the sacraments, so I rely on the priest, whose job it is to interpret and apply those documents and celebrate liturgy, to define what is and is not abuse. As long as I don’t witness anything that clearly invalidates the Eucharist, I roll with it. Personal preference is not the determinant of abuse.

I would say this is an inadequate definition. It would be akin to saying police brutality is anything that the police officer in question finds to be too brutal. But, since he is the one acting anything he does is, by definition, acceptable to him and so there is actually no police brutality.

I recall a Mass in which the priest refused to read the Gospel, as it was just a book of legends which never actually happened, and then during his speech (I will refrain from calling it a homily) he denied there were saints in heaven. He then stopped the communion line so that he could loudly berate my wife for her desire to receive on the tongue. This caused her to come back to the pew crying in shame and humiliation. But, using your definition, none of this was an abuse. I admire your desire to avoid accusations of priests, but I fear that your view is going too far. We can recognize that abuses exist without being confrontational and unreasonable.

 

[TheMc]

A liturgical abuse is when the priest, or anyone else does not follow the rubrics pertaining to the celebration (without a good “excuse”).

 

[TBolt1000T]

What if a priest accidentally makes an honest mistake, which may or may not cause the congrigation to question the validity of the Eucharist? Wouldn’t that just be a mistake, and not an abuse? What is to be done, if anything, in that situation?

 

[jja619]

Okay, but is the ceiling cosidered part of the the sanctuary? As for the mural of Mary at my church? I need to look it up to check if it is correct or not. I am not saying you are wrong,but the problem is that it becomes the center of attention and focus. One of the priest once said imagine what a Protestant would think: See Mary is the center of their worship. I agree with the priest to an extent. As Catholics we know we do not worship Mary,but to an outsider more than likely that comes into his/her mind.

Well I would not deem a picture of Jesus at the center an issue because He is the center of attention.

There’s nothing wrong with centering one’s faith around the blessed mother. If you grow closer to her, the only thing that’s going to happen is that she’s going to bring you closer to her Son. Afterall, she is his first and most faithful disciple. There’s a lot we can learn from our mother. =)

As for our protestant brethren, we just have to educate them.

 

[adrift]

What if a priest accidentally makes an honest mistake, which may or may not cause the congrigation to question the validity of the Eucharist? Wouldn’t that just be a mistake, and not an abuse? What is to be done, if anything, in that situation?

My understanding of liturgical abuse is that it does not matter the intention. I do believe that some occur because of ignorance and others because of pride. There are those as
Godfollower says life is to short to worry about. I feel really blessed when I attend an abuse free Mass. It is a rare event. I don’t dwell on it. I try to concentrate on what is important about the Mass. It really isn’t mine to claim so to speak. It is the priest who is at fault and needs our prayers. One blessed priest who I really believe was a living saint didn’t have the washing of the hands at mass. Why I don’t know. I wanted to ask but I didn’t have the courage before he died.

 

[adrift]

There’s nothing wrong with centering one’s faith around the blessed mother. If you grow closer to her, the only thing that’s going to happen is that she’s going to bring you closer to her Son. Afterall, she is his first and most faithful disciple. There’s a lot we can learn from our mother. =)

As for our protestant brethren, we just have to educate them.

A wonderful first post. Welcome!

 

[Godfollower]

What if a priest accidentally makes an honest mistake, which may or may not cause the congrigation to question the validity of the Eucharist? Wouldn’t that just be a mistake, and not an abuse? What is to be done, if anything, in that situation?

In most situations, nothing. If it affects the validity of a Sacrament, then something should be done.

A former priest of mine tells a story of a choir member getting up and approaching the altar just before the distribution of Communion. He placed a business card on the altar, face down. The priest looked at the business card; hand-written on it was the following: “You forgot the Consecration!”

So he stopped where he was in the Mass, and thought about it. Sure enough, he had turned to the wrong page and proceeded on autopilot. WHOOPS!

He told the congregation what he had done, and he went back to the place he had skipped, consecrated the Eucharist, and finished the Mass correctly.

That was handled appropriately; a simple reminder to a priest who obviously had made a mistake. And it had to be corrected, or the congregation would have received bread and wine instead of the Body and Blood of Christ. But no one rushed the altar, red-faced and screaming “Abuse! Abuse!” A gentle reminder fixed the problem.

As for things that don’t affect the validity of a Sacrament, why let anger into your heart about it? If someone is standing in the orans posture, or a child is running up and down the aisle, or the congregation is holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer or chanting the Doxology along with the priest, the Sacrament is still valid. Offer it up to God. Don’t be “That angry guy” or “That angry woman” who never has anything good to say and always greets the priest with “Today you screwed up in the following ways . . . .”

Vita parum brevis est.

 

[Brendan]

what I consider to be liturgical abuse is irrelevant.
There are church documents that govern Mass and the sacraments, so I rely on the priest, whose job it is to interpret and apply those documents and celebrate liturgy, to define what is and is not abuse. As long as I don’t witness anything that clearly invalidates the Eucharist, I roll with it. Personal preference is not the determinant of abuse.

I would agree that my personal opinion is irrelevant. But I would state that the decision is Rome’s not that of any specific priest.

The Vatican spells out what it considers to be grave abuses in Redemptionis Sacramentum. No ‘interpretation’ by any individual priest nor bishop can make those items specifically listed by Rome into licit actions.

How would you suggest that you fulfil the directive given, not just to the clergy, but to specifically to the faithful as as well in R.S.

[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.[290] 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.

 

[Godfollower]

puzzleannie;7887329:

what I consider to be liturgical abuse is irrelevant.
There are church documents that govern Mass and the sacraments, so I rely on the priest, whose job it is to interpret and apply those documents and celebrate liturgy, to define what is and is not abuse. As long as I don’t witness anything that clearly invalidates the Eucharist, I roll with it. Personal preference is not the determinant of abuse.

I would agree that my personal opinion is irrelevant. But I would state that the decision is Rome’s not that of any specific priest.

The Vatican spells out what it considers to be grave abuses in Redemptionis Sacramentum. No ‘interpretation’ by any individual priest nor bishop can make those items specifically listed by Rome into licit actions.

How would you suggest that you fulfil the directive given, not just to the clergy, but to specifically to the faithful as as well in R.S.

[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.[290] 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.

I would begin by noting that there’s a huge difference between “Any Catholic . . . must lodge a complaint” and “Any Catholic . . . has the right to lodge a complaint.” Then I would proceed as noted in earlier posts: if it affects the validity of the Sacrament, go ahead and complain; but don’t sweat the small stuff.

And, yes, I’m afraid that I have to insist that not every violation of a rubric is a capital offense.

 

[adrift]

I would begin by noting that there’s a huge difference between “Any Catholic . . . must lodge a complaint” and “Any Catholic . . . has the right to lodge a complaint.” Then I would proceed as noted in earlier posts: if it affects the validity of the Sacrament, go ahead and complain; but don’t sweat the small stuff.

And, yes, I’m afraid that I have to insist that not every violation of a rubric is a capital offense.

It may be small to you. I don’t believe the Church agrees with you. We aren’t talking about the mistake but the deliberate disobedience. I believe it was Jesus who said " He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much."

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;7901819:

I would begin by noting that there’s a huge difference between "Any Catholic . . . must

lodge a complaint" and “Any Catholic . . . has the right to lodge a complaint.” Then I would proceed as noted in earlier posts: if it affects the validity of the Sacrament, go ahead and complain; but don’t sweat the small stuff.

And, yes, I’m afraid that I have to insist that not every violation of a rubric is a capital offense.

It may be small to you. I don’t believe the Church agrees with you. We aren’t talking about the mistake but the deliberate disobedience. I believe it was Jesus who said " He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much."

Actually, the Church herself says that there are varying degrees of “abuses” – and that’s without even getting to the things that violate the rubrics but do not themselves constitute “abuses.”

Among the various abuses there are some which are objectively graviora delicta or otherwise constitute grave matters, as well as others which are nonetheless to be carefully avoided and corrected.

Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 171. See also ¶¶ 172-174, distinguishing between graviora delicta, grave abuses, and “other abuses”. And then compare Redemptionis Sacramentum itself against the Mass rubrics, and you’ll see that there are plenty of ways for a presiding priest (or other people at the Mass) to violate the Mass rubrics without it constituting a “grave abuse.”

Let me give you an example: The Order of Mass states that, just before Communion,

Then, if appropriate, the Deacon, or the Priest, adds: Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
And all offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion, and charity. The Priest gives the sign of peace to a Deacon or minister.

Order of Mass ¶ 128.

If the priest or deacon says “Let us offer each other the sign of peace,” and everyone but you “offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion, and charity,” have you committed an abuse that the common laity are required to correct? After all, by refusing to participate, you’ve disobeyed the Order of Mass.

It isn’t graviora delicta under ¶ 172, because it isn’t listed as one of the four abuses under that section. And it isn’t a “grave abuse” under ¶ 173, because retaining the Sign of Peace is listed in ¶¶ 71-72, which are not listed in the “grave abuse” section. Instead, it’s an “other abuse” under ¶ 174 (“actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction”).

Remember, the only “option” with respect to the Sign of Peace is that the presiding priest is to offer it “if appropriate;” once the priest or deacon invokes the Sign, there is no “option” to it. So, if you aren’t giving the Sign of Peace to those around you, do I as a lay member have a duty to correct this abuse?

As another example, suppose the presiding priest makes announcements that we can all agree aren’t “necessary.” He’s giving them at the right place, but the rubrics say announcements are to be made “If they are necessary,” and they clearly aren’t (let’s further suppose that they aren’t “brief”). Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t mention this. As far as I can tell, that means that this violation of the Order of Mass is not an abuse.

So don’t sweat it.

Now, mind you, I’m not saying that the pastor gets to ignore the Mass rubrics, because he doesn’t. The Church herself regulates the Mass, and pastors aren’t free to tinker with it. I’m just saying that the people who go ballistic every time something happens that they don’t like, need to chill a bit. If it affects the validity of a Sacrament, by all means do something “in truth and charity,” Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 184, to correct it or cause it to be corrected. Otherwise, take a breath and let the pastor take care of it.