What do you consider liturgical abuses?

[cothrige]

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.

If I may, I would disagree with this statement. In fact pastors do get to ignore the rubrics and they are free to tinker with it. I know. For fifteen years in this diocese I have yet to attend a Mass where such didn’t happen throughout, from small things to large. Nothing is done, and nothing is likely ever to be done to correct this, if in fact it needs to be corrected. This is how it is. We should not expect Holy Mother Church to regulate the liturgy because she will not. Now, I am not arguing that she should, or that she can, or any such thing. I am simply pointing out that she will not, and does not, and priests are free to do whatever they please wherever they are. Father Pfleger has had 30 years at St. Sabina denouncing anything Catholic there is and ignoring every rubric in the book, and all in the most public way possible. Nobody can pretend that people haven’t known about it, and nothing has ever been done. Why? Because nothing needs to be done. If it mattered it would not be allowed, and my experience is it is allowed everywhere. Rubrics are, perhaps, suggestions, but beyond this they mean nothing whatsoever.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;7905201:

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.

If I may, I would disagree with this statement. In fact pastors do get to ignore the rubrics and they are free to tinker with it. I know. For fifteen years in this diocese I have yet to attend a Mass where such didn’t happen throughout, from small things to large. Nothing is done, and nothing is likely ever to be done to correct this, if in fact it needs to be corrected. This is how it is. We should not expect Holy Mother Church to regulate the liturgy because she will not. Now, I am not arguing that she should, or that she can, or any such thing. I am simply pointing out that she will not, and does not, and priests are free to do whatever they please wherever they are. Father Pfleger has had 30 years at St. Sabina denouncing anything Catholic there is and ignoring every rubric in the book, and all in the most public way possible. Nobody can pretend that people haven’t known about it, and nothing has ever been done. Why? Because nothing needs to be done. If it mattered it would not be allowed, and my experience is it is allowed everywhere. Rubrics are, perhaps, suggestions, but beyond this they mean nothing whatsoever.

Okay, but our disagreement (if we really have one) is one of “should” versus “actually does.”

There are priests out there who violate the Mass rubrics all the time. We all agree that the priests are not allowed to do so. The main debate we seem to be having on this thread is whether to protest against every violation of the rubrics (I say not), or only against what for lack of a better term I’ll call the important violations of the rubrics.

Some priests get away with grave abuses for a long time; others get away with minor abuses for a short time; and many others do everything right but still get criticized. The fact that one gets away with a violation, however, doesn’t make the violation okay; and we aren’t really in a position to know exactly what the priest’s pastor or bishop is doing about whatever violations we see.

If your priest is violating the rubrics that much, then I would say begin by looking at the fundamentals: is the Sacrament valid? If not, why not? Then take steps to correct that problem. For example, if the priest is having laymen perform the consecration using rice bread and grape juice, then it’s time to contact the bishop – with truth and charity, of course – because you are being denied the Eucharist. If the bishop refuses to take action after having a reasonable time to act, then you can take it to Rome. The procedures are spelled out in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

If, on the other hand, the priest is simply conducting valid Sacraments in a way inconsistent with the Mass rubrics, then the question becomes whether it’s worth your time fighting it. And, if it’s simply a question of taste (I’m not saying it is in your case), then it’s not something to do anything about.

But, if grave abuses are being permitted by the local Ordinary, it’s time to bring in Rome.

 

[cothrige]

There are priests out there who violate the Mass rubrics all the time. We all agree that the priests are not allowed to do so.

Not to quibble, but it is my position that they are very much allowed to do it. And that allowance means as much as any rubric. Rubrics are theoretical liturgy, but the real liturgy happens in churches, and it has nothing to do with rubrics in my experience.

The main debate we seem to be having on this thread is whether to protest against every violation of the rubrics (I say not), or only against what for lack of a better term I’ll call the important violations of the rubrics.

Okay, but why protest any violation of the rubrics? They don’t matter in the least, and they never have. Those who like them follow them, and those who don’t, don’t. Priests like my example of Pfleger are as representative of the Catholic liturgy as the Holy Father in Rome. More so actually, as I have seen many local liturgies of his style, to one degree or another, but never one like the pope’s. The pope and the rubrics are both effectively irrelevant to my faith as far as liturgy is concerned. They are on TV, not in churches.

Some priests get away with grave abuses for a long time; others get away with minor abuses for a short time; and many others do everything right but still get criticized. The fact that one gets away with a violation, however, doesn’t make the violation okay; and we aren’t really in a position to know exactly what the priest’s pastor or bishop is doing about whatever violations we see.

I would say that ‘getting away’ with a violation definitely makes it okay. For one thing, these violations are real, and rubrics are only words on paper. For another, if one violates a rubric long enough the violation then becomes the rubric. In that way violations are actually both theoretical and real, whereas rubrics are always theoretical.

As for your point about big things versus small things, I can follow what you are saying and see the logic. But, practically speaking, I have as many doubts about your suggestion as that which you are opposing. Take your example of a big thing, validity. Let me ask you this, if Father Pfleger’s Mass were valid would that really make it better? If it weren’t, would you be in favor of struggling to make it valid, and thereby exposing the Sacrament to constant desecration? Seeing the Mass as a whole it could be hard to determine which issues are big and which are small, though in the end I honestly doubt it much matters anyway. They are all small. Infinitely so. Why? Because, quite simply, the Church permits them.

 

[TBolt1000T]

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.

Great story! That was great how the priest went back and did the consecration before distributing Communion.

I heard a similar story once, about a priest who made a very similar honest mistake. I guess it happens sometimes, especially if the priest is new at saying Mass. It has to be embarrassing as all get out for the poor priest, and scarry for the congregation.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

This is not liturgical abuse, but an abuse nonetheless. In this parish, which I had the misfortune to visit one Holy Saturday, the altar is offset from the centerline, equidistant with the ambo. This is worryingly common in newer church buildings and is in direct violation of many Church documents which state that the altar should be the focal point of the sanctuary. You cannot see in this photo, but the corpus of the crucifix is transparent, and has fiber optic cables inside it which glow red and white, resembling veins and arteries. It looks like something from a sci-fi/horror movie. Just outside the photo on either side are large video screens.

http://www.divinesavior.com/images/tour/crucifix.jpg

 

[adrift]

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.

But this is percisely what I thought your were saying. Now that you have clarified it I agree with what you say. I don’t believe however that an individual not acting in an “official capacity” who acts contrary to the rubrics, for instance your example of the exchange of peace, committs an abuse. This is why I would like a document that states what an abuse is. I have looked and found no definition. As far as the pastor taking care of it, they are the ones that are committing the ones I have seen. Ones that Redmptionis Sacramentum calls grave. I first write the pastor. Sometimes they correct it because frankly they didn’t know better. Sometimes they send a letter explaining why they are doing what they do. Sometimes they just ignore the letter. It can be dropped then or contact the Bishop. After that you can feel you did what you should do or could do and forget it.

 

[TheMc]

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.

But in 183, doesn’t it say that “let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that … all abuses be thoroughly corrected”? Then, 184 says to do that “in truth and charity.”

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Okay,but the issue here has to do with a mural of her at the center of the sanctuary,not our lives.

 

[Godfollower]

But this is percisely what I thought your were saying. Now that you have clarified it I agree with what you say. I don’t believe however that an individual not acting in an “official capacity” who acts contrary to the rubrics, for instance your example of the exchange of peace, committs an abuse. This is why I would like a document that states what an abuse is. I have looked and found no definition. As far as the pastor taking care of it, they are the ones that are committing the ones I have seen. Ones that Redmptionis Sacramentum calls grave. I first write the pastor. Sometimes they correct it because frankly they didn’t know better. Sometimes they send a letter explaining why they are doing what they do. Sometimes they just ignore the letter. It can be dropped then or contact the Bishop. After that you can feel you did what you should do or could do and forget it.

Well, it’s hard to give a list of abuses, because it’s so easy to create new ones. You could list every single violation of the Mass rubrics you’ve ever seen, and someone could still do something else you’ve never seen that itself violates the rubrics. I think Redemptionis Sacramentum goes a long way to defining “abuses” at the end of the document:

• Graviora delicta are (a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away; (b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same; (c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination; and (d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist. Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 172.
• “Grave abuses” are anything that affects the validity or dignity of the Eucharist, and specifically anything that violates ¶¶ 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 173.
• “Other abuses” constitute anything else mentioned in RS. Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 174.

Then, presumably, any other violations of the rubrics are simply violations, not abuses.

The course of action you’re taking appears to be the correct one: start with the presiding priest. If that doesn’t work, go to the pastor. If that doesn’t work, go to the bishop. If that doesn’t work, go to the Vatican.

But not all violations of the rubrics are of equal weight. I shudder to think of the Vatican’s mailbox if a complaint went to the Vatican every time an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion picked up a chalice from the altar instead of it being handed to him or her. So, for me, If it affects the validity of the Sacrament, do what you can in Christian truth and charity; if not, relax.

 

[Godfollower]

But in 183, doesn’t it say that “let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that … all abuses be thoroughly corrected”? Then, 184 says to do that “in truth and charity.”

Yes, but I understood that to mean with respect to things that violate the Eucharist. After all, the entire instruction is aimed at safeguarding the celebration of the Eucharist. I certainly don’t think that we all have the right (much less the duty) to run around screaming “Abuse! Abuse!” every time we don’t like the music or the way the members of the congregation sit/stand/kneel during the Mass.

 

[TheMc]

Yes, but I understood that to mean with respect to things that violate the Eucharist. After all, the entire instruction is aimed at safeguarding the celebration of the Eucharist. I certainly don’t think that we all have the right (much less the duty) to run around screaming “Abuse! Abuse!” every time we don’t like the music or the way the members of the congregation sit/stand/kneel during the Mass.

1. It’s not about what we like, it’s about what the church has asked us to do.
2. No one is running around screaming (at least not I). All that is required is a (few) letter(s) or phone call(s) to the parish or the bishop’s office.

 

[adrift]

Well, it’s hard to give a list of abuses, because it’s so easy to create new ones. You could list every single violation of the Mass rubrics you’ve ever seen, and someone could still do something else you’ve never seen that itself violates the rubrics. I think Redemptionis Sacramentum goes a long way to defining “abuses” at the end of the document:

.

There is still no “Church” definition of abuse. There is only examples.

Then, presumably, any other violations of the rubrics are simply violations, not abuses.

That is qutie a leap especially since there is no definition to follow. I would also say that it contradicts this

1. Other Abuses

1. Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.

1. The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.

Although we are referring mostly to the Euchrist, other sacraments may have abuses also.

1. Delicts against the Faith as well as graviora delicta committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which “examines them and, if necessary, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law

It is only grave infractions that should be referred to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith others I would think should be handled as mentioned before.

 

[ElToro]

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.

That’s very interesting. Like you I would not tolerate something that would invalidate the Mass. However I have long wondered about learning how to stoically endure versus work to remedy those things that are otherwise serious?

I have seen my parish really go down the drain in my lifetime and I wondered what would have happened if more people would have stood-up and said “no” instead of fleeing or just remaining quiet?

 

[johnnykins]

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.

If you can learn what constitutes validity, you can learn what constitutes liceity. I just don’t agree that tolerating illiceity is appropriate. Things that are illicit are an abuse. I note that when there are illicit acts and prayers, the risk of invalidity goes up. I also note that illicit actions and prayers cause scandal in that people often come away with a perception that anything goes thereby leading them to reject all manner of teachings. The last 45 years have done much to demonstrate that danger.

 

[ElToro]

If you can learn what constitutes validity, you can learn what constitutes liceity. I just don’t agree that tolerating illiceity is appropriate. Things that are illicit are an abuse. I note that when there are illicit acts and prayers, the risk of invalidity goes up. I also note that illicit actions and prayers cause scandal in that people often come away with a perception that anything goes thereby leading them to reject all manner of teachings. The last 45 years have done much to demonstrate that danger.

No, I don’t suspect that is true. I would guess that most Masses I have attended for the past 20+ years have included something illicit. Exactly twice have their been issues of potential invalidity.

Once, when someone prepared something other than approved wheat hosts for the Mass (choclate truffles which were dumped prior to Mass) and another time when a dissident visiting priest ad-libbed the Mass including the words of institution. That caused an harsh uproar and we never say him again.

 

[Brendan]

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.

I agree, but the Church herself noted what the grave abuses are, and it is not only offenses against the validity of the Sacrament, but also against the dignity of the Sacrament.

A great example is the use of ceraminc or glass vessels, or of the pouring of the species of wine from one vessel to another after it has been Consecrated.

The Church specifically denotes these as being grave abuses against the diginity of the Sacrament. If the Church feels that such are grave abuses, no one has the authority to claim otherwise.

 

[TheMc]

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.

What about this?

1. 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.

Then, it goes on to say that any catholic can lodge a complaint, to show that, yes, that is “in their power”.

 

[Godfollower]

What about this?

1. 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.

Then, it goes on to say that any catholic can lodge a complaint, to show that, yes, that is “in their power”.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this thread: if it affects the validity of a Sacrament – like, let’s just say, Holy Communion – then do something about it (again, always in truth and charity, always assume good faith on the part of everyone involved, and always start at the local level). Otherwise, it’s not exactly a life-or-death situation, and feel free to worship God without sitting there fuming about it.

But if it’s affecting Holy Communion, get involved.

 

[Godfollower]

I agree, but the Church herself noted what the grave abuses are, and it is not only offenses against the validity of the Sacrament, but also against the dignity of the Sacrament.

A great example is the use of ceraminc or glass vessels, or of the pouring of the species of wine from one vessel to another after it has been Consecrated.

The Church specifically denotes these as being grave abuses against the diginity of the Sacrament. If the Church feels that such are grave abuses, no one has the authority to claim otherwise.

I believe that is one of the ones I listed as a grave abuse – it’s ¶ 117 of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

But, if the event in question affects the validity of Holy Communion (like, say, using rice cakes), it’s a more serious problem. Yes?

 

[johnnykins]

No, I don’t suspect that is true. I would guess that most Masses I have attended for the past 20+ years have included something illicit. Exactly twice have their been issues of potential invalidity.

Once, when someone prepared something other than approved wheat hosts for the Mass (choclate truffles which were dumped prior to Mass) and another time when a dissident visiting priest ad-libbed the Mass including the words of institution. That caused an harsh uproar and we never say him again.

When something illicit is done, then the chance for invalidity arises. If everything is licit, then there is no chance for invalidity. Not a hard concept.

One of the reason for rules - liceity - is to assure validity. Your 2 cases make the point in spades. Consider the invalid baptismal formula used in Brisbane. Yikes. Just follow the rules and you’ll never have the issue of validity arise at all.