Why I Didn't Go to Confession Today (a bishop's reaction to liturgical abuse at a mass)

[Mark1970]

I believe this is an abuse. While a priest does have the Holy Order of Deacon he should never vest down to that of a deacon to act as one.

It is the norm in the EF of Mass for a priest to take the role of deacon if a transitory or permanent deacon is available for Solem Mass, perhaps they have “borrowed” the practice from the EF. When I observed Masses celebrated this way, the effect was to make an OF Solemn Mass look very similar to an EF Solemn Mass.

The church in question is run by Oratorians, it seems to be a common practice among all the Oratories in England to observe this practice. They are usually very liturgically conservative, knowing the community in question I’d be very surprised if they were knowingly promoting a significant liturgical abuse.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is the norm in the EF of Mass for a priest to take the role of deacon if a transitory or permanent deacon is available for Solem Mass, perhaps they have “borrowed” the practice from the EF. When I observed Masses celebrated this way, the effect was to make an OF Solemn Mass look very similar to an EF Solemn Mass.

The church in question is run by Oratorians, it seems to be a common practice among all the Oratories in England to observe this practice. They are usually very liturgically conservative, knowing the community in question I’d be very surprised if they were knowingly promoting a significant liturgical abuse.

I believe this is an abuse that developed in the EF when they lacked permanent deacons.

Though I understand it in the EF High Mass as a deacon is necessary, a deacon is not necessary for an OF Mass so there is no need to have a priest vest down.

 

[Mark1970]

I believe this is an abuse that developed in the EF when they lacked permanent deacons.

Though I understand it in the EF High Mass as a deacon is necessary, a deacon is not necessary for an OF Mass so there is no need to have a priest vest down.

With all due respect, are you able to support your belief this is an abuse with appropriate references? It was normal practice in the EF for this to happen and it seems that you have the onus of proof in deternining that this is an abuse.As far as I am aware the use of priests acting as deacons had official sanction in the EF. For example, the book The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, a guide to the rubrics of the EF, refers to the deacon and subdeacon of a Bishop’s Solemn High Mas as being canons of the cathedral, who would invariably have been senior ordained priests.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

With all due respect, are you able to support your belief this is an abuse with appropriate references? It was normal practice in the EF for this to happen and it seems that you have the onus of proof in deternining that this is an abuse.As far as I am aware the use of priests acting as deacons had official sanction in the EF. For example, the book The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, a guide to the rubrics of the EF, refers to the deacon and subdeacon of a Bishop’s Solemn High Mas as being canons of the cathedral, who would invariably have been senior ordained priests.

It became the “normal practice” when the Latin Church stopped ordaining permanent deacons and sub-deacons in the secular part of the Church. The religious orders never stopped doing so.

As for references, I don’t feel the need to dig them up. Take what I have said as you wish, it is not worth the time to argue over it.

 

[Newbie2]

He had no need to make any parenthetical statement as it is no one’s business to know this.

Only those who think that the Sacrament of Penance is only for those who have mortal sin (which it is not) would assume such a thing and the biggest issue here is the assumption. Making assumptions is never a good thing.

Indeed, and that’s my point. Joe uninformed Catholic or Joe Protestant might make such an assumption (good idea or not).

I totally agree that making assumptions is…well…(almost, to me) never a good thing. That’s why I didn’t like the Bishop’s assumption that the priest would engage in some sort of abuse of the sacrament of Confession.

 

[benedictgal]

The bishop has an update and some comments that were generated from the comments to his blog.

thoughtsofacatholicbishop.blogspot.com/2011/08/addenda.html

I believe this is an abuse. While a priest does have the Holy Order of Deacon he should never vest down to that of a deacon to act as one.

They would vest as a deacon for the Extraordinary Form. Recall, too, that the Cardinal Deacons vest as deacons when they are with the Holy Father.

 

[zab]

I don’t know if the bishop is setting a good example by making excuses of why he didn’t go to Confession. Many parishioners are in the same situation when they have a priest or pastor who is now all that we want him to be. Yet we should trust that God chooses to work through weak human beings. It seems to me that the bishop’s mention of “Ecclesia supplet” (“the Church provides”) would cover the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, too. Just my thoughts.

 

[504Katrin]

Someone at my parish told me a story of how she had confessed some particularly embarrassing deeds to a priest at another parish, left the confessional and realized the priest had not said the words of absolution.

So she went back to the rectory, interrupted the priest who was having dinner and told him he never absolved her. He said he did, she said he didn’t and they went back and forth until he reluctantly told her to come in. She repeated her confession and this time he said the words.

unfrigginbelievable. I mean, our parish isn’t the smartest parish either and we’re a little bit “crazy” also sometimes as we mess up things here and there. However, if the priest had forgotten to absolve me and I would have told him he would have done it right away and he would not have argued and insisted on having his dinner instead. Good heavens!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Indeed, and that’s my point. Joe uninformed Catholic or Joe Protestant might make such an assumption (good idea or not).

I doubt many protestants know much about confession and as for the uninformed Catholic, again, it is none of their business and if they do make such assumptions then what must they have thought of Blessed Pope John Paul II as it is well known that he attended confession weekly. He also encouraged frequent use of this Sacrament.

I totally agree that making assumptions is…well…(almost, to me) never a good thing. That’s why I didn’t like the Bishop’s assumption that the priest would engage in some sort of abuse of the sacrament of Confession.

I would not call what the bishop did an assumption. More of a possible deduction. If the priest in question has no regard for the rubrics of the Mass then one may be safe to think that he may treat the other Sacraments in the same manner. Added to that is the fact that no one is required to go to any specific priest for the Sacrament of Penance and we are free to use any criteria that we wish in determining where we will go for this Sacrament.

 

[sojo]

Totally OT, but I am so touched when I read about a priest or bishop who attends a regular Mass by themselves with no fanfare, no request to con-celebrate.

When I was in the process of converting from Judaisim (non-practicing) to Catholicism, I regularly attended early morning Mass at the Cathedral in San Francisco. It was held in the small private chapel behind the altar, and generally 4-8 people attended (it was very early, dark and cold). Most days Mass was served by the many visiting international priests in attendance, but right regularly we were surprised to have a bishop or the archbishop himself attend with no pomp or ritual - just biz as usual. It was terrific! One time the celebrator (I forget who) had a bad cold and asked me to do the readings. I explained that I wasn’t trained as a lector and was only newly baptized and he laughed and said, “if you can read out loud right now and save my voice for the consecration, you are fully trained!” This was about 4 months after Easter and he stayed behind to give me a special blessing on my new baptism.

I remember stopping into St. Patricks in NYC on business and the Archbishop handled the weekday adoration service to no great fanfare… just another priest handling business.

[edited] Yet our Archbishop rose at 5 a.m. in order to dress and make it to the little chapel behind the altar to serve Mass for us 6 early risers at daily Mass.

So the thought of a bishop quietly attending a priest’s Mass, sitting perhaps in the back in regular clothing and silently joining in with the laiety… it is very moving, no?

 

[Newbie2]

I doubt many protestants know much about confession and as for the uninformed Catholic, again, it is none of their business and if they do make such assumptions then what must they have thought of Blessed Pope John Paul II as it is well known that he attended confession weekly. He also encouraged frequent use of this Sacrament.

Again, I think you miss my point. I believe that the blog says that the Bishop wanted to go to confession after the mass. Since the Bishop has teaching authority, I think it incumbant upon him to clarify why he chose to attend confession after mass, and he could do so without going into detail on his mortal sin status. “I normally like to go to confession before mass, but at this parish it was offered only after mass”. Something like that. He put in plenty of other details, so all I’m asking is that he be a little more clear in setting an example. As well, I really don’t care when he decides to go to confession, but my only concern is that some uninformed Catholics might think this is the norm i.e. going to confession after mass, following the example of a Bishop.

I would not call what the bishop did an assumption. More of a possible deduction. If the priest in question has no regard for the rubrics of the Mass then one may be safe to think that he may treat the other Sacraments in the same manner. Added to that is the fact that no one is required to go to any specific priest for the Sacrament of Penance and we are free to use any criteria that we wish in determining where we will go for this Sacrament.

I think you’re confusing the defintion of assumption and deduction, nonetheless, he’s making a statement about the Priest’s probably engaging in abuses in the confessional with no evidence for that being the case. Assumptions/deductions of this sort are the very thing I’m talking about…the appearance of scandal where none may exist; rumor, if you will, speculation that brings possible harm to the Church. For the time being, let’s call it speculation.

While the good Bishop is free to, and probably should wonder to himself what the priest is doing in the confessional. However,*** if*** public speculation etc. is OK, how far is OK?

If the priest is doing such things, does he follow proper form in Baptism; is it not a reasonable assumption/decuction that the Priest does not? How about Annointing of the Sick? Is it not a reasonable assumption that he’s doing that wrong too? And he probably is giving pre-marital advice that ABC is OK too, as well as telling his parishioners that have SSA that homosexual relationships are OK too. Heck, if you push speculation to the extreme, you might conclude that he’s probably dong other very bad things too.

Of course, I don’t mean to suggest that the priest involved is doing any of these things. All we know are the Bishop’s observations druing mass…that’s all…but my point is that speculation can be a very dangerous thing.

See my point?

I think it much better that the Bishop would have left it at the things he directly observed, and not speculated on what the Priest may or may not be doing for other sacraments.

There is also a matter of setting an example. Should parishioners make the same “deduction” if they notice any irregularities/abuses during mass? If so, how serious? We use glass chalices in our parish. Should parishioners avoid confession, after all, our priest is allowing an abuse. Our EMHCs, Priest and Deacon all give blessings during communion. Surely a priest who allows this cannot use proper form in the confessional, yes? No?

 

[GwenL]

I would guess that the bishop planned to go to confession after Mass (and not before) for the same reason as most of us. For an unscheduled confession at daily (includes Sat am) Mass, the priest usually has more time after. I’d rather be considerate of the priest’s time–unless I have some terribly pressing time commitment, let him peacefully prepare for Mass as is his normal routine and approach for confession after Mass.

Here is a direct quote fromthe Bishop’s blog post:

“If he changed the words of the Institution Narrative, there’s no telling what he might do with the words of Absolution.”

Note that he is saying “if he makes the consecration invalid, who knows if he’ll make the absolution invalid.”. The bishop here is not talking about general liturgical abuses, but about those worst type of abuses that actually invalidate the sacrament.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

They would vest as a deacon for the Extraordinary Form. Recall, too, that the Cardinal Deacons vest as deacons when they are with the Holy Father.

Yes I know that priests vest and act as deacons for EF High Masses because the use of a deacon is required. I believe this is sort of an institutionalize abuse from the time when the Latin Church abandoned the permanent diaconate.

The poster I was replying to though said that in his parish the priest vests and acts as a deacon instead of concelebrating. The fact that the EF does not allow for concelebration means that this is being done at the OF. The OF Mass does not require a deacon so a priest should never vest as such. He should either concelebrate or participate as one of the congregation.