M
Maximilian75
Guest
well that’s a relief…
What was the most egregious liturgical abuse you ever witnessed?
- Status
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Abusive? No. Well intended? Probably. Proper and respectful of the Blessed Sacrament? I wouldn’t say so.
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
@Duesenberg My two cents: a forum, or any public discussion, is not a place for parish gossip that servers no purpose (since it creates scandal and does not solve anything). Furthermore, the average parishioner hardly has the trained eye to spot actual liturgical abuse. Many call “liturgical abuse” what they don’t understand or don’t like.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Sure it does. At the very least it’s a sanity check. I’m at the point right now where I’m beginning to wonder if anything is really set in stone with regard to the Church, or can it all be explained away or justified?
There’s no scandal. I didn’t mention the name of the priest or the parish church.
I do. I know the difference between an actual abuse (all three levels according to Redemptionis Sacramentum), versus mere irregularities or personal peferences.
Last edited:
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
Gossiping is no sanity check - it is mere gossip. It is also toxic to the soul - as prove by your very statement:
Also, it is wiser to use a keen eye in introspection than in seeking the faults outside of us, or so does suggest “The Imitation of Christ”.
Hope some of this helps. It helped me when I was a “liturgical policeman”.
St. Ignatius of Loyola was adamant:
St. Francis of Assisi went as far as to command his brothers in his Testament, as a model of imitation:
And here we are, arguing that this statement is heretical, and that action is a liturgical abuse, and we forget the log in our own eye. You state:
I suggest that if you do have such knowledge, then it is better to share the knowledge rather than the abuse, and report the abuse politely through the proper, private channels. After all, every Ordinary (as you surely know) is the supreme liturgist of his Church.
Also, it is wiser to use a keen eye in introspection than in seeking the faults outside of us, or so does suggest “The Imitation of Christ”.
Hope some of this helps. It helped me when I was a “liturgical policeman”.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
It wasn’t gossip. With so many in today world/Church trying to poo-poo away any and all legitimate concerns, one really does begin to wonder just how deep one has to dig in order to hit granite?
Unless to rose to the level of Graviora delicta or other grave matters, I wouldn’t waste my time reporting an actual abuse.
Last edited:
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
@Duesenberg Please don’t take everything personal. I hardly ever address people’s posts at a personal level. I refer to the fact that you started a thread asking people to post about serious liturgical abuses and it now has 220 posts. I think the poo-poo tends to float up every time we stir the “liturgical abuse” cauldron. What do you expect to achieve with your thread?
Anyways, as I do not tend to engage in long debates, I hope some of my posts gave the readers food for thought. Moving on to other threads now
If it is not worth reporting, it is not even worth thinking about. At mass, we should only be focusing on the fact that we are in the holy presence of God.
Anyways, as I do not tend to engage in long debates, I hope some of my posts gave the readers food for thought. Moving on to other threads now
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Naw. I have seen a number of things that should/should have been corrected but they won’t be – at least under the current pastor. If a new pastor came along and he exhibited some true leadership, I would make mention. Chances are good such a priest would recognize them on his own and remedy the situation without a word.
R
runningdude
Guest
Following an explicitly permitted form of communion is not a liturgical abuse.
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
I acknowledge your point.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’ll jump back in here…I’ll repeat my earlier post in this thread:
Sections 2 and 3 of Canon Law #212:
§2: “Christ’s faithful, are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.”
We’re not talking about “average” parishioners here. We’re talking about people who are familiar with Canon Law and GIRM, not to mention other sources. As should be clear to anyone who has read through this thread, quite often we (yes, I’ll include myself) are more knowledgeable than the priest. The priest is not God, not is he infallible. As section 3 above says, we have a DUTY to object when we see things happening that shouldn’t. Does it do any good? Yes. In my personal experience, I have been able to have some things changed. The priest was simply ignorant; I quoted GIRM, and he complied. And at the very least the priest is put on notice that he can’t simply flout GIRM without anyone noticing and complaining.
As an aside, I mentioned several weeks ago that I was going to ask various national conferences of bishops about the ambiguity of GIRM 162. I’ve gotten some answers back, and I’ll post them in the next few days. This has relevance here because although in this thread we have been analyzing and discussing it, it’s clear to me that some of the national conferences of bishops haven’t thought about the matter at all. So much for guidance.
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
To object and to gossip in the public square are two different matters. There are proper channels through which the keen liturgical policeman can object. One of them is talking politely to the celebrant or to the pastor, or in grave situations, writing a polite letter to the Ordinary.
A priest, by virtue of his Ordination, deserves respect. There are more appropriate, Christian ways to refer to a priest’s unawareness or lack of knowledge than to call him ignorant.
We also have a serious issue of clericalization, at least in the US. The priest is not supposed to “comply” to the laity. If anything he complies to the norms of the GIRM. And when a layman points out a mistake, he should approach the priest with reverence, not with an “I’m nobody’s fool, I ain’t scared of ya, I know better” attitude. Even when we do know better. Remember that Christ “took the form of a slave”.
Is the correspondence private? If yes, why disclose it, unless there is explicit permission to divulge the answer? It is at least rude to disclose someone’s answer if it is not a public statement or an official letter (usually with a protocol number).
In any case, it is nice to see that here on CAF we have some serious scholars ready to fix the issues that have escaped the attention of the many theologians and liturgists of several national conferences of bishops and of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Perhaps some of our users may land a job in Rome after this!
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’m going to bed, but before I do, I’ll respond.
When I see things that I think are wrong I have 1) set up a meeting with the priest and discussed the issue with him 2) written him an e-mail 3) written the bishop an e-mail 4) written the liturgy committee and/or the parish council an e-mail.
This is not “gossip.” As I have said in earlier posts, if I get nowhere, I drop it, since I am just wasting my time.
“Ignorant” is a perfectly good adjective; I used it accurately to describe the priest’s knowledge of a specific point. I didn’t call him “ignorant” to his face or use the word to describe him to anyone in the parish. Does a priest “deserve” respect? Does our Great Leader (Donald J. Trump) deserve respect? Does a pedophile priest? Does the former Wells Fargo CEO? I could go on. I think you need to EARN respect, no matter who you are. Yes, you can give people the benefit of the doubt if you like, but I refuse to respect anyone simply by virtue of their title. But somehow I don’t think anyone cares whether or not I respect them, so it’s a moot point.
As for my upcoming post, I have not and will not quote names, but I will quote which country the response was from. That’s only fair. Am I blindsiding these people? Not at all. I started each e-mail with “A group of friends was discussing this issue, and we would like your opinion.” They know perfectly well that whatever they say will be passed on to my “friends.”
As for your last paragraph, it suggests that people in a position of power are somehow smarter or more informed than us lowly peasants. My own experiences have been the opposite: the people actually doing the work know a lot more than their managers. Let me illustrate with a story. I was in a neighborhood discussion group that discussed foreign affairs. Their attitude was much like yours: “Oh, poor little citizens like us are just stupid; those masterminds in the government know much more than we do.” Really? So a couple years ago there was an op-ed in the Washington Post about Syria and what scenarios might play out there. I read the article and wrote the author an e-mail, asking why he omitted what I thought was the most obvious scenario at that time. He was nice enough to respond, and he simply said “I didn’t think of that.” Fair enough, right? But who was the author? He was acting director of the CIA under Bush and before and after an asst. director at the CIA. And he “didn’t think of that”??? What??? That’s our tax dollars at work…
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Several weeks ago, in the course of the discussion, I brought up the issue of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist–when do they line up behind the priest and the altar? I quoted GIRM #162: “These ministers should not approach the altar until after the priest has received communion.” I had always interpreted that as the Ext. Min. should wait outside the sanctuary until the priest received communion, then after that “approach the altar” i, e, enter the sanctuary and line up.
I will put my conclusions first, since a lot of people don’t read long posts. Conclusion #1: Things are often more complicated than they seem. In this case, the preceding paragraph in GIRM talks about acolytes (always male, 4th minor order) and Ext. Min. So does “these ministers” mean only acolytes? All Ext. Min.? Authorities differ. The second ambiguity was “approach the altar.” Does that mean “enter the sanctuary” or does it literally mean “the altar”? Again, authorities differ. Conclusion #2: It’s clear that a lot of people–even in national liturgy organizations–have not really thought through the issue. Or, if they have, are reluctant to recommend one practice over another.
I wrote off to several national conferences of bishops: the US, the UK, Canada, Australia. I got the Canadian response today, and since it is by far the most detailed and thoughtful response, I will quote it in full in the next post. (it’s too long to fit here). I’ll give the other responses later.
I will put my conclusions first, since a lot of people don’t read long posts. Conclusion #1: Things are often more complicated than they seem. In this case, the preceding paragraph in GIRM talks about acolytes (always male, 4th minor order) and Ext. Min. So does “these ministers” mean only acolytes? All Ext. Min.? Authorities differ. The second ambiguity was “approach the altar.” Does that mean “enter the sanctuary” or does it literally mean “the altar”? Again, authorities differ. Conclusion #2: It’s clear that a lot of people–even in national liturgy organizations–have not really thought through the issue. Or, if they have, are reluctant to recommend one practice over another.
I wrote off to several national conferences of bishops: the US, the UK, Canada, Australia. I got the Canadian response today, and since it is by far the most detailed and thoughtful response, I will quote it in full in the next post. (it’s too long to fit here). I’ll give the other responses later.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
from the Episcopal Commission for Liturgy and the Sacraments, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops:
"This is an issue that is ambiguous intentionally. This is one of those situations that calls for dialogue to ensure the distribution of Holy Communion is not prolonged (which is a problem in many Parishes particularly because of the way the distribution of Holy Communion to the Extraordinary Ministers is handled) while at the same time invoking dignity and reverence. When and how the ministers approach the altar or enter the sanctuary are often determined by the size and architecture of the church. The movement should not be a distraction and there should not be a pregnant pause waiting for the Extraordinary Ministers to take his/her places after the priest receives.
It is not uncommon for the Extraordinary Ministers to enter the sanctuary during the Agnus Dei. The emphasis with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is on making sure the Extraordinary Ministers do not receive at the same time as the priest(s). That being said, ideally, as mentioned, there should not be a delay in having the Extraordinary Ministers in the rightful place to receive Holy Communion immediately after the priest receives. This ensures Holy Communion is distributed in a dignified, reverent and efficient manner. The basic rule of thumb is that there should be a minister for every 100 people (though some limitations in the space make this difficult) so as to not prolong the distribution of Holy Communion. As an aside, if hand sanitizer is being used be the ministers, this should be done discreetly before they take their position near the altar, preferably at their seats before they even enter the sanctuary. They should not be drying/wringing their hands in front of the assembly while the final prayers and invitation to the table are being spoken! Another point to note (which is not being followed in many places) is that the Communion Processional hymn commences as soon as we finish saying “Lord I am not worthy…” not after the priest and ministers receive Holy Communion!
One other important item to note is that the General Instruction does not provide for any movement to the tabernacle. Extraordinary Ministers should not under any circumstances be accessing the reserved Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle. The GIRM presumes that an adequate number of hosts are consecrated for the Mass. When there are leftovers the GIRM calls for the priest to place the excess in the tabernacle. These explicit changes with the revised General Instruction are to dissuade the use of the tabernacle during the celebration of the Eucharist. The tabernacle is not intended for use during the celebration of the Eucharist, it is solely intended for the reserve of the Blessed Sacrament for distribution to the sick and for prayer. Hence the Extraordinary Ministers should be receiving and distributing the Blessed Sacrament from what was consecrated at that Mass."
"This is an issue that is ambiguous intentionally. This is one of those situations that calls for dialogue to ensure the distribution of Holy Communion is not prolonged (which is a problem in many Parishes particularly because of the way the distribution of Holy Communion to the Extraordinary Ministers is handled) while at the same time invoking dignity and reverence. When and how the ministers approach the altar or enter the sanctuary are often determined by the size and architecture of the church. The movement should not be a distraction and there should not be a pregnant pause waiting for the Extraordinary Ministers to take his/her places after the priest receives.
It is not uncommon for the Extraordinary Ministers to enter the sanctuary during the Agnus Dei. The emphasis with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is on making sure the Extraordinary Ministers do not receive at the same time as the priest(s). That being said, ideally, as mentioned, there should not be a delay in having the Extraordinary Ministers in the rightful place to receive Holy Communion immediately after the priest receives. This ensures Holy Communion is distributed in a dignified, reverent and efficient manner. The basic rule of thumb is that there should be a minister for every 100 people (though some limitations in the space make this difficult) so as to not prolong the distribution of Holy Communion. As an aside, if hand sanitizer is being used be the ministers, this should be done discreetly before they take their position near the altar, preferably at their seats before they even enter the sanctuary. They should not be drying/wringing their hands in front of the assembly while the final prayers and invitation to the table are being spoken! Another point to note (which is not being followed in many places) is that the Communion Processional hymn commences as soon as we finish saying “Lord I am not worthy…” not after the priest and ministers receive Holy Communion!
One other important item to note is that the General Instruction does not provide for any movement to the tabernacle. Extraordinary Ministers should not under any circumstances be accessing the reserved Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle. The GIRM presumes that an adequate number of hosts are consecrated for the Mass. When there are leftovers the GIRM calls for the priest to place the excess in the tabernacle. These explicit changes with the revised General Instruction are to dissuade the use of the tabernacle during the celebration of the Eucharist. The tabernacle is not intended for use during the celebration of the Eucharist, it is solely intended for the reserve of the Blessed Sacrament for distribution to the sick and for prayer. Hence the Extraordinary Ministers should be receiving and distributing the Blessed Sacrament from what was consecrated at that Mass."
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Sorry for a 3rd post in a row, but those 3200 character limits are a problem…
Canada also referred me to “Guide for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” [I should note that this is the preferred term, not “…Ministers of the Eucharist…”] 2nd ed. Corinna Laughlin. This is available in the US from the usual online bookstores. $5.95. Which brings up another issue: why hasn’t the USCCB issued a similar book?
If they have, I’m unaware of it.
I should add the Canadian Conf. of Cath. Bishops has a whole series of booklets (80-100 pp) on deacons, lectors, liturgy committees, music, etc. etc. I’m sure these are all available in the US, and if they are as thoughtful as the reply I got to my question, they would be extremely valuable for any parish library.
https://esubmitit.sjpg.com/cccb/index.aspx?component=ProductDetails&id=ELE-MC2
Canada also referred me to “Guide for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” [I should note that this is the preferred term, not “…Ministers of the Eucharist…”] 2nd ed. Corinna Laughlin. This is available in the US from the usual online bookstores. $5.95. Which brings up another issue: why hasn’t the USCCB issued a similar book?
If they have, I’m unaware of it.
I should add the Canadian Conf. of Cath. Bishops has a whole series of booklets (80-100 pp) on deacons, lectors, liturgy committees, music, etc. etc. I’m sure these are all available in the US, and if they are as thoughtful as the reply I got to my question, they would be extremely valuable for any parish library.
https://esubmitit.sjpg.com/cccb/index.aspx?component=ProductDetails&id=ELE-MC2
Last edited:
H
Horton
Guest
Thank you. I’ve seen it done both ways and now I know what the rule on it is.
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
Thanks for taking the time to reply and state your argument. I have to go now but I’ll come back and read your posts attentively.
Just as an aside: people don’t need to “earn” our respect. We owe others their respect as children of God made in His image and likeness. Remember the quote “whatsoever you do to the least of these you did it to me”?
A priest deserves respect. The President deserves respect. A pedophile deserves respect because he is a human being with a God-given dignity that is not stripped away by his sin/crime (which is why we have prison ministries).
And it is usually the case that people higher up know more because of their office and because they have the need to know. Most of us just think we know, or believe what we are fed by the media or other groups with an agenda (especially in Catholic circles…).
Just as an aside: people don’t need to “earn” our respect. We owe others their respect as children of God made in His image and likeness. Remember the quote “whatsoever you do to the least of these you did it to me”?
A priest deserves respect. The President deserves respect. A pedophile deserves respect because he is a human being with a God-given dignity that is not stripped away by his sin/crime (which is why we have prison ministries).
And it is usually the case that people higher up know more because of their office and because they have the need to know. Most of us just think we know, or believe what we are fed by the media or other groups with an agenda (especially in Catholic circles…).
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I think we should agree to disagree.
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
Only on the second part. The first part belongs to the faith of the Church. It is found in the Catechism and in the teachings of Sacred Tradition.the_coppersmith:
I think we should agree to disagree.
- Status